Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
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.