Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
On the law applicable in September 2005, the offshore transfer of shares of a Mauritius company by non-resident shareholders was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(i), because the Tribunal applied the look-at test and followed Vodafone International Holdings to hold that an indirect transfer through a foreign company could not be treated as a direct transfer of Indian assets. Since the underlying gain was not chargeable to tax in India at the time of payment, section 195 did not create any withholding obligation, and later retrospective insertions in section 9(1)(i) could not fasten liability on the payer. The deletion of liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld.
On the law applicable in September 2005, the offshore transfer of shares of a Mauritius company by non-resident shareholders was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(i), because the Tribunal applied the look-at test and followed Vodafone International Holdings to hold that an indirect transfer through a foreign company could not be treated as a direct transfer of Indian assets. Since the underlying gain was not chargeable to tax in India at the time of payment, section 195 did not create any withholding obligation, and later retrospective insertions in section 9(1)(i) could not fasten liability on the payer. The deletion of liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
