Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
Transfer pricing method selection favours TNMM where medical-equipment distribution involves substantial post-import value addition and operational ri...
Post-export shipping bill conversion remains available where contemporaneous evidence supports EPCG benefits despite curable procedural omissions and ...
Section 10A relief was denied on the claim that 31 units were...
Section 10A and related deductions: Tribunal rejects separate-undertaking claim, but allows loss set-off, ESOP cost and foreign tax credit in principle.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Section 10A relief was denied on the claim that 31 units were separate undertakings, because the Tribunal followed its earlier year order, as affirmed by the Delhi HC, and found no new factual material to reopen that position. By contrast, it allowed or accepted in principle several other claims: losses of eligible units were held set offable after the 2001 amendment, depreciation at 60% was allowed on computer peripherals integral to the system, Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A was deleted as prospective, and ESOP discount was treated as allowable employee cost subject to verification. Foreign tax credit was not denied merely because income was section 10A-deductible, while issues on foreign branch profits, software licence fee and creditor balances were remanded for factual verification.
Section 10A relief was denied on the claim that 31 units were separate undertakings, because the Tribunal followed its earlier year order, as affirmed by the Delhi HC, and found no new factual material to reopen that position. By contrast, it allowed or accepted in principle several other claims: losses of eligible units were held set offable after the 2001 amendment, depreciation at 60% was allowed on computer peripherals integral to the system, Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A was deleted as prospective, and ESOP discount was treated as allowable employee cost subject to verification. Foreign tax credit was not denied merely because income was section 10A-deductible, while issues on foreign branch profits, software licence fee and creditor balances were remanded for factual verification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.