Marketing support and subcontracted client contracts: no agency permanent establishment under Article 5 DTAA; arm's-length pricing bars profit attribu...
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
