<?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 (8) TMI 330 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118111</link>
    <description>Offshore supply profits under a turnkey contract were examined under the India-Finland DTAA and the Income-tax Act to determine whether they were attributable to an Indian permanent establishment. Article 7(1)(a) was treated as inapplicable because the profits on offshore supply arose before the installation permanent establishment came into existence and there was no evidence of non-arm&#039;s-length pricing. Article 7(1)(b) was also held inapplicable because the record did not show sales in the other State of goods of the same or similar kind as those sold through the permanent establishment. Article 7(1)(c) did not apply because the issue concerned equipment sale proceeds, not other business activities in India. The profits were therefore not taxable in India, and section 9(1)(i) was not separately examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 330 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118111</link>
      <description>Offshore supply profits under a turnkey contract were examined under the India-Finland DTAA and the Income-tax Act to determine whether they were attributable to an Indian permanent establishment. Article 7(1)(a) was treated as inapplicable because the profits on offshore supply arose before the installation permanent establishment came into existence and there was no evidence of non-arm&#039;s-length pricing. Article 7(1)(b) was also held inapplicable because the record did not show sales in the other State of goods of the same or similar kind as those sold through the permanent establishment. Article 7(1)(c) did not apply because the issue concerned equipment sale proceeds, not other business activities in India. The profits were therefore not taxable in India, and section 9(1)(i) was not separately examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>