<?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 (5) TMI 602 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207808</link>
    <description>The court held that the income received under the BEAT agreement did not accrue in India as the services were rendered outside India. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment orders imposing Indian income-tax were overturned, directing exclusion of the BEAT agreement income from tax assessments. The petition was granted, and the rule was upheld accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 602 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207808</link>
      <description>The court held that the income received under the BEAT agreement did not accrue in India as the services were rendered outside India. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment orders imposing Indian income-tax were overturned, directing exclusion of the BEAT agreement income from tax assessments. The petition was granted, and the rule was upheld accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>