Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Cross-charge payments made under a cost-sharing arrangement on a cost-to-cost basis, without markup, were held to be pure reimbursement and not income; mere charging of service tax did not alter that character, so no TDS liability arose and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted. The court also held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), as introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and operates retrospectively; where the resident payee had reported the income, paid tax, and the requisite certificate was furnished, the payer could not be treated as an assessee in default. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Cross-charge payments made under a cost-sharing arrangement on a cost-to-cost basis, without markup, were held to be pure reimbursement and not income; mere charging of service tax did not alter that character, so no TDS liability arose and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted. The court also held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), as introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and operates retrospectively; where the resident payee had reported the income, paid tax, and the requisite certificate was furnished, the payer could not be treated as an assessee in default. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
