Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order on Cricket Australia vs. ACIT (International Taxation). Analysis includes why license f...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT rules in Ares Diversified Vs ACIT that rejection of belated objections by DRP does not extend the limitation for passin...
Income Tax : Read about Bombay High Courts decision upholding ITAT's order directing Vodafone India to deposit Rs.230 crores to stay income tax...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the Delhi ITAT order on Denso (Thailand) vs ACIT, discussing tax liability for technical services under Indi...
Income Tax : ITAT emphasized that under the accrual system, provisions for outstanding expenses can indeed be recognized based on estimates and...
ITAT Mumbai held that services provided by Indian Company to company registered in Isle of Man (i.e. non-resident company) under Canvasser Agent Agreement, on principal-to-principal basis not taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from disaster recovery playout services and disaster recovery up-linking services are not in the nature of Fee for Technical Service (FTS) as envisaged under Article 12(4)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA(3) TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior to the date prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, in present case, TPO order passed on 30/01/2015 instead of 29/01/2015 is non-est and liable to be quashed as being barred by limitation.
This article analyzes how Section 153’s time limit prevails over Section 144C’s assessment time limit, based on the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs ACIT in Bombay High Court.
ITAT Delhi held that rendering cloud computing services/ Amazon Web Services (AWS Services) cannot be held to be liable to tax in India either as royalty or as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)/ Fees for Included Services (FIS).
In present facts of the case, it was held that the services rendered were in the nature of advisory services as per the terms of the agreement, therefore these services cannot be the part of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13 of India – UK DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that Corporate Guarantee facility provided to overseas AE by the assessee is an international transaction and hence addition towards Arm’s Length Guarantee Fee confirmed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only in respect of turnover of assessee-company relating to international transactions. In nut-shell, transfer pricing addition should be restricted only qua international transaction and not entity level transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that the payments received by the assessee in view of architectural design services rendered to its clients in India are not chargeable to tax as FTS in terms of Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that where assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
