<?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>2005 (1) TMI 598 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117696</link>
    <description>A public charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act and section 12A was treated as outside the Committee on Disputes clearance mechanism, which was confined to disputes involving Government departments, public sector undertakings, or litigants with Government financial interest. Payments for international leased line and bandwidth services to foreign telecom companies were also analysed under section 195: they were held not to be fees for technical services or included services, and no technical knowledge or process was made available. As the sums were not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction obligation arose and the consequential liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 598 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117696</link>
      <description>A public charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act and section 12A was treated as outside the Committee on Disputes clearance mechanism, which was confined to disputes involving Government departments, public sector undertakings, or litigants with Government financial interest. Payments for international leased line and bandwidth services to foreign telecom companies were also analysed under section 195: they were held not to be fees for technical services or included services, and no technical knowledge or process was made available. As the sums were not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction obligation arose and the consequential liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>