Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Explanations 4 to 6 to section 9(1)(vi) were held to expand the definition of royalty and to operate prospectively from 01.04.2012, following the Supreme Court ruling in Engineering Analysis and the assessee's earlier case. On that basis, remittance for IPLC and related bandwidth services to a non-resident was not taxable as royalty for the years in question, so no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 arose. Consequently, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) and consequential action under section 201, including interest liability, could not be sustained. The Court also noted that the law does not require an impossible act, and the questions of law were answered for the assessee.
Explanations 4 to 6 to section 9(1)(vi) were held to expand the definition of royalty and to operate prospectively from 01.04.2012, following the Supreme Court ruling in Engineering Analysis and the assessee's earlier case. On that basis, remittance for IPLC and related bandwidth services to a non-resident was not taxable as royalty for the years in question, so no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 arose. Consequently, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) and consequential action under section 201, including interest liability, could not be sustained. The Court also noted that the law does not require an impossible act, and the questions of law were answered for the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.