<?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>2010 (2) TMI 124 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75948</link>
    <description>Assignment consideration received by a non-resident for contractual rights was treated as business profits rather than capital gains, because the assignment was ineffective against the original counterparty for lack of valid consent. Even so, the income was not taxable in India under the treaty since no fixed place permanent establishment, dependent agent permanent establishment, or agency permanent establishment in India was established. In the absence of a permanent establishment, Article 7 barred Indian taxation of the business profits. As the receipt was not chargeable to tax in India, section 195 withholding did not apply to the remittance, and the Indian payer had no tax deduction obligation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 124 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75948</link>
      <description>Assignment consideration received by a non-resident for contractual rights was treated as business profits rather than capital gains, because the assignment was ineffective against the original counterparty for lack of valid consent. Even so, the income was not taxable in India under the treaty since no fixed place permanent establishment, dependent agent permanent establishment, or agency permanent establishment in India was established. In the absence of a permanent establishment, Article 7 barred Indian taxation of the business profits. As the receipt was not chargeable to tax in India, section 195 withholding did not apply to the remittance, and the Indian payer had no tax deduction obligation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>