Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96136 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.