Recurring advisory/consultancy services without transfer of know-how/technical skill did not satisfy “make available” requirement under Article 12(4)(b) DTAA and therefore, payments couldn’t be taxed as FTS.
In the instant case, the grievance of assessee was directed against the impugned notices dated 24.03.2025 and 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148A(1); the order passed under Section 148A(3); and the consequential notice issued under Section 148, all pertaining to AY 2019-20.
Both return and Form 10B were filed within extended due date (31.10.2018). Thus, substantive compliance was achieved. Filing of audit report after the return but before expiry of due date could not be construed as fatal non-compliance.
Where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted international transactions at arm’s length without proposing any variation under Section 92CA(3), assessee did not qualify as an “eligible assessee” under Section 144C(15)(b).
Since the SCN did not propose retrospective cancellation or raise the issue of non-existent premises, the impugned cancellation order was unsustainable therefore, assessee’s GST registration should be treated as cancelled only from 31 December 2024, the date of the SCN.
Benefit of CBIC Notification dated 2 November 2023 extending limitation for filing appeals up to 31 January 2024 could not be denied merely because adjudication order was passed after 31 March 2023; appeals restored subject to compliance with pre-deposit conditions.
The case of assessee was that the assessments for these years were time-barred. It was urged that in view of the limitation prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, the authority concerned initially declared the assessments for all the years to be time-barred.
Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by DRI on failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under section 110 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 as section 110A functions as an interim arrangement to allow release of goods, including perishable or fast-moving items, but does not in any way impede or limit the mandatory time limit in Section 110(2).
Once the Division Bench had remitted the matter without entertaining the plea of alternative remedy, learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing writ petitions on that ground again; matter remitted for decision on merits.
Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion did not offend the rights available under Constitution of India. Assessee had argued that it would not be appropriate for Banu to participate in Hindu religious rituals, including lighting of a sacred lamp, offering fruits and flowers to the deity and chanting Vedic prayers. Such practices can only be performed by a Hindu, they argued.
