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...
Taxation of fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA was addressed: the Tribunal applied the limited scope of Article 9 as a neutralisation rule for intra-group profit adjustments and rejected recharacterisation of the transaction. The assessee, a Singapore entity, was treated as a distinct legal person and its refurbishing services were held not taxable in India because Article 12(3) did not apply and Article 12(4)(a) was inapplicable since the services were not rendered in connection with payments described in paragraph 3. The Tribunal followed coordinate-bench precedent and deleted the addition for fabrication charges; appeal allowed.
Taxation of fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA was addressed: the Tribunal applied the limited scope of Article 9 as a neutralisation rule for intra-group profit adjustments and rejected recharacterisation of the transaction. The assessee, a Singapore entity, was treated as a distinct legal person and its refurbishing services were held not taxable in India because Article 12(3) did not apply and Article 12(4)(a) was inapplicable since the services were not rendered in connection with payments described in paragraph 3. The Tribunal followed coordinate-bench precedent and deleted the addition for fabrication charges; appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
