Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reimbursement of salary cost for seconded employees was not taxable as fees for technical services where the secondees worked under the control of the Indian entity and the payment contained no separate service element. Applying the earlier ruling in the group concern case, the ITAT found no material factual distinction for the year under consideration and treated the receipt as falling within the employer-employee salary exclusion. The addition made on that basis was deleted. The challenge to the validity of the assessment order was not pressed and was therefore not admitted.
Reimbursement of salary cost for seconded employees was not taxable as fees for technical services where the secondees worked under the control of the Indian entity and the payment contained no separate service element. Applying the earlier ruling in the group concern case, the ITAT found no material factual distinction for the year under consideration and treated the receipt as falling within the employer-employee salary exclusion. The addition made on that basis was deleted. The challenge to the validity of the assessment order was not pressed and was therefore not admitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.