<?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 (7) TMI 392 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207399</link>
    <description>Fees for technical services paid to independent acting surveyors were held to have an effective functional nexus with the Indian permanent establishment because the PE received the survey application, directed the surveyor, allotted the job number, processed invoices, and routed billing to head office. On that basis, Article 12(1) and 12(2) of the India-Japan DTAA did not apply, and taxability was confined to profits attributable to the PE under Article 7. The write-off of advance leave and licence rent was also treated as allowable revenue expenditure, since the payment was for use of premises, did not create enduring capital advantage, and the loss was real rather than contingent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 392 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207399</link>
      <description>Fees for technical services paid to independent acting surveyors were held to have an effective functional nexus with the Indian permanent establishment because the PE received the survey application, directed the surveyor, allotted the job number, processed invoices, and routed billing to head office. On that basis, Article 12(1) and 12(2) of the India-Japan DTAA did not apply, and taxability was confined to profits attributable to the PE under Article 7. The write-off of advance leave and licence rent was also treated as allowable revenue expenditure, since the payment was for use of premises, did not create enduring capital advantage, and the loss was real rather than contingent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>