Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Voice termination service receipts were held not to be royalty or fees for technical services under the Act or the India-USA DTAA because the payment was for a standard telecom service, with no transfer of a right in equipment, intellectual property, or any secret process. The Tribunal followed prior coordinate bench and HC rulings, and held that retrospective domestic amendments broadening "process" could not enlarge the treaty definition of royalty through Article 3(2). The receipts were therefore business profits, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, they were not taxable in India.
Voice termination service receipts were held not to be royalty or fees for technical services under the Act or the India-USA DTAA because the payment was for a standard telecom service, with no transfer of a right in equipment, intellectual property, or any secret process. The Tribunal followed prior coordinate bench and HC rulings, and held that retrospective domestic amendments broadening "process" could not enlarge the treaty definition of royalty through Article 3(2). The receipts were therefore business profits, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, they were not taxable in India.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
