Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.