Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
HC upheld the Tribunal's finding that the non-resident assessee did not have a service PE in India under Art. 5(6) of the India-Singapore DTAA for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22. It approved exclusion of 36 vacation days from the employees' 120-day physical presence, resulting in only 84 days in India, below the 90-day threshold. HC held that only actual days of service rendering in India are relevant and rejected the Revenue's contention of a "virtual service PE," noting that such a concept is absent from both the DTAA and the domestic statute. Appeals were dismissed against the Revenue.
HC upheld the Tribunal's finding that the non-resident assessee did not have a service PE in India under Art. 5(6) of the India-Singapore DTAA for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22. It approved exclusion of 36 vacation days from the employees' 120-day physical presence, resulting in only 84 days in India, below the 90-day threshold. HC held that only actual days of service rendering in India are relevant and rejected the Revenue's contention of a "virtual service PE," noting that such a concept is absent from both the DTAA and the domestic statute. Appeals were dismissed against the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
