<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (5) TMI 152 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69904</link>
    <description>Payments under a bareboat charter-cum-demise arrangement to a non-resident ship owner were treated on their substance as hire charges for use of the vessel, not as sale consideration, because ownership passed only on exercise of the purchase option and final payment. A ship was regarded as industrial or commercial equipment for the royalty definition in section 9(1)(vi) and article 12, while article 8 was confined to profits from the operation of ships in international traffic and did not cover these use-based payments. As the sums were chargeable to tax in India, the payer could not disregard section 195 and had to deduct tax at source on the income element.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 152 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69904</link>
      <description>Payments under a bareboat charter-cum-demise arrangement to a non-resident ship owner were treated on their substance as hire charges for use of the vessel, not as sale consideration, because ownership passed only on exercise of the purchase option and final payment. A ship was regarded as industrial or commercial equipment for the royalty definition in section 9(1)(vi) and article 12, while article 8 was confined to profits from the operation of ships in international traffic and did not cover these use-based payments. As the sums were chargeable to tax in India, the payer could not disregard section 195 and had to deduct tax at source on the income element.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>