Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Payments for hiring International Private Leased Circuits were not liable to tax deduction at source under section 195 because the remittance was not taxable in India absent a permanent establishment. The Court followed its earlier Division Bench ruling in the assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., holding that Explanations 4, 5 and 6 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 could not be applied retrospectively to treat such payments as royalty. The withholding issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Payments for hiring International Private Leased Circuits were not liable to tax deduction at source under section 195 because the remittance was not taxable in India absent a permanent establishment. The Court followed its earlier Division Bench ruling in the assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., holding that Explanations 4, 5 and 6 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 could not be applied retrospectively to treat such payments as royalty. The withholding issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
