Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether a portion of consideration paid under a global partnership agreement for on-ground advertising and the right to use event-related marks constituted "royalty" under s.195 read with the Indo-Singapore DTAA was determined by construing the agreement as creating a substantive licence to use the relevant trademark worldwide across "advertising material" in any medium. The payer's own admissions and contemporaneous correspondence showed trademark use could not be treated as merely incidental to advertising. Since the apportionment of the composite consideration into advertising (2/3) and trademark licence (1/3) was not substantially disputed, treating 1/3 as royalty and requiring withholding tax at 15% on that portion was upheld. - HC
Whether a portion of consideration paid under a global partnership agreement for on-ground advertising and the right to use event-related marks constituted "royalty" under s.195 read with the Indo-Singapore DTAA was determined by construing the agreement as creating a substantive licence to use the relevant trademark worldwide across "advertising material" in any medium. The payer's own admissions and contemporaneous correspondence showed trademark use could not be treated as merely incidental to advertising. Since the apportionment of the composite consideration into advertising (2/3) and trademark licence (1/3) was not substantially disputed, treating 1/3 as royalty and requiring withholding tax at 15% on that portion was upheld. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.