Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Payments for project-specific architectural and structural design services to Singapore entities were not fees for technical services because the India-Singapore DTAA "make available" test was not satisfied: the services did not transfer technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes for independent use by the assessee. As the treaty condition failed, tax was not required to be deducted under section 195, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was correctly deleted. The Tribunal also followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year, finding no distinguishing facts.
Payments for project-specific architectural and structural design services to Singapore entities were not fees for technical services because the India-Singapore DTAA "make available" test was not satisfied: the services did not transfer technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes for independent use by the assessee. As the treaty condition failed, tax was not required to be deducted under section 195, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was correctly deleted. The Tribunal also followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year, finding no distinguishing facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.