International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
