Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cross-charged intra-group support services under the India-UK DTAA did not meet the make available requirement for fees for technical services. The Court held that centralized support and supervision, with technical control and know-how remaining with the parent company, did not amount to transfer of technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the Indian entity. Mere guidance or incidental employee skill development was insufficient because there was no material showing independent application of technical know-how by the Indian entity. The receipts were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services under Article 13, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Cross-charged intra-group support services under the India-UK DTAA did not meet the make available requirement for fees for technical services. The Court held that centralized support and supervision, with technical control and know-how remaining with the parent company, did not amount to transfer of technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the Indian entity. Mere guidance or incidental employee skill development was insufficient because there was no material showing independent application of technical know-how by the Indian entity. The receipts were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services under Article 13, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
