<?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 (4) TMI 548 - ITAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206905</link>
    <description>Payments to two US non-resident entities for developing and validating a manufacturing process were held to constitute fees for included services because the work made available technical knowledge, skill, know-how and processes to the recipient. The Tribunal noted that the arrangements went beyond mere testing abroad and resulted in transfer of technical capability enabling the assessee to use the process in its business thereafter. On that basis, the treaty and section 9(1)(vii) were attracted, the payments were taxable in India, and tax was required to be deducted at source. The assessee was therefore treated as an assessee in default and interest under section 201(1A) was chargeable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 548 - ITAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206905</link>
      <description>Payments to two US non-resident entities for developing and validating a manufacturing process were held to constitute fees for included services because the work made available technical knowledge, skill, know-how and processes to the recipient. The Tribunal noted that the arrangements went beyond mere testing abroad and resulted in transfer of technical capability enabling the assessee to use the process in its business thereafter. On that basis, the treaty and section 9(1)(vii) were attracted, the payments were taxable in India, and tax was required to be deducted at source. The assessee was therefore treated as an assessee in default and interest under section 201(1A) was chargeable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>