<?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>2011 (5) TMI 342 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206212</link>
    <description>Discounting of bills of exchange or promissory notes on a without recourse basis was treated as a purchase of the instrument, not a loan or debt-claim arrangement, so the discount margin was not interest under domestic law or the treaty definition. The income was characterised as business income; on the assumed facts, it was not taxable in India under the DTAA because no permanent establishment in India was assumed and no profits were attributed to one. As a result, withholding tax under section 195 was not attracted and transfer pricing compliance was not insisted upon for the transaction, but a return of income remained required because the income was chargeable under the Act, though protected by the treaty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 342 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206212</link>
      <description>Discounting of bills of exchange or promissory notes on a without recourse basis was treated as a purchase of the instrument, not a loan or debt-claim arrangement, so the discount margin was not interest under domestic law or the treaty definition. The income was characterised as business income; on the assumed facts, it was not taxable in India under the DTAA because no permanent establishment in India was assumed and no profits were attributed to one. As a result, withholding tax under section 195 was not attracted and transfer pricing compliance was not insisted upon for the transaction, but a return of income remained required because the income was chargeable under the Act, though protected by the treaty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>