TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
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.