Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
