<?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 (11) TMI 589 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206115</link>
    <description>Interest paid by a foreign enterprise on borrowings from shareholder-lenders or joint venture partners for Indian project operations was treated as deductible in computing profits attributable to its Indian permanent establishment. Article 7(3)(b) of the India-Belgium treaty was held to deny only internal interest-like charges between a permanent establishment and its head office, not actual interest paid to independent outside lenders who were also shareholders. The Explanation to section 37 of the Income-tax Act did not apply because the claim was made under section 36(1)(iii). In the absence of a specific Indian thin-capitalization rule, the deduction could not be denied on a generalized anti-abuse or recharacterisation theory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 589 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206115</link>
      <description>Interest paid by a foreign enterprise on borrowings from shareholder-lenders or joint venture partners for Indian project operations was treated as deductible in computing profits attributable to its Indian permanent establishment. Article 7(3)(b) of the India-Belgium treaty was held to deny only internal interest-like charges between a permanent establishment and its head office, not actual interest paid to independent outside lenders who were also shareholders. The Explanation to section 37 of the Income-tax Act did not apply because the claim was made under section 36(1)(iii). In the absence of a specific Indian thin-capitalization rule, the deduction could not be denied on a generalized anti-abuse or recharacterisation theory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>