Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.