The Supreme Court affirmed that payments for cloud computing services are not royalty where no intellectual property rights are transferred. It held that mere access to services does not amount to use of equipment or technology under tax law.
The Court held that the issue of treating DRP upload as receipt was already settled by earlier rulings. It dismissed the Revenue’s appeals while making the decision subject to the Supreme Court’s final outcome.
The Tribunal held that trading and service activities were inextricably linked and could not be segmented. It accepted entity-level TNMM, rendering TP adjustments unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be denied merely because it does not appear under the assessee’s PAN. It ruled that the assessee cannot be forced to ensure revision of TDS returns by the deductor.
The Tribunal set aside the dismissal of a delayed appeal, holding that the issue of distribution fee taxability requires fresh examination on merits. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration with proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that return of advances cannot be taxed under Section 68. The key takeaway is that explained transactions supported by records cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing the return due to pending probate proceedings was beyond the control of executors. It ruled that such delay constituted a bona fide explanation, leading to deletion of penalty under Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that no documentary evidence connected the Customs Broker to the alleged fraudulent exports. Revocation and penalty were quashed for want of proof.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS obligation arises, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding it addressed an incorrect issue. It ultimately upheld that no disallowance applies when no expense is claimed.
