Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For Article 5(2)(l) of the India-US DTAA, the service PE threshold is measured by the period of service activity in India, not by repeatedly counting overlapping employee presence as cumulative man-days. On the facts relied on by the CIT(A), the employees were present in India for only 72 solar days, so the 90-day threshold was not met and no service PE arose. In the absence of any other PE and with no contrary precedent or distinguishing facts shown, the treaty prevails and the receipts could not be taxed as business income under section 44BB. The deletion of the addition was therefore upheld.
For Article 5(2)(l) of the India-US DTAA, the service PE threshold is measured by the period of service activity in India, not by repeatedly counting overlapping employee presence as cumulative man-days. On the facts relied on by the CIT(A), the employees were present in India for only 72 solar days, so the 90-day threshold was not met and no service PE arose. In the absence of any other PE and with no contrary precedent or distinguishing facts shown, the treaty prevails and the receipts could not be taxed as business income under section 44BB. The deletion of the addition was therefore upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.