Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Consideration for project-specific designs, drawings and related deliverables was held to be an outright transfer of those documents and the associated project intellectual property, not payment for the use of, or right to use, a design. Article 12(3) of the India-UAE DTAA was interpreted as covering only use-right payments, so sale or transfer receipts fell outside royalty. Because treaty protection was claimed, the wider domestic definition of royalty could not be invoked. The receipt was therefore not taxable as royalty in India and the contrary assessment was set aside.
Consideration for project-specific designs, drawings and related deliverables was held to be an outright transfer of those documents and the associated project intellectual property, not payment for the use of, or right to use, a design. Article 12(3) of the India-UAE DTAA was interpreted as covering only use-right payments, so sale or transfer receipts fell outside royalty. Because treaty protection was claimed, the wider domestic definition of royalty could not be invoked. The receipt was therefore not taxable as royalty in India and the contrary assessment was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
