<?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>2012 (3) TMI 286 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211533</link>
    <description>Payments made to a foreign deputing entity as reimbursement of salary and related costs for seconded personnel were treated as not shown to be sums chargeable to tax in India. The arrangement showed that the secondees remained on the foreign entity&#039;s payroll, with no separate fee for technical services or know-how and no employee-employer relationship with the Indian assessee. Section 195 applies only where the remittance is chargeable under the Act, and the assessee could bona fide treat the payments as outside Indian taxability. On that basis, there was no default under Chapter XVII-B and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 286 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211533</link>
      <description>Payments made to a foreign deputing entity as reimbursement of salary and related costs for seconded personnel were treated as not shown to be sums chargeable to tax in India. The arrangement showed that the secondees remained on the foreign entity&#039;s payroll, with no separate fee for technical services or know-how and no employee-employer relationship with the Indian assessee. Section 195 applies only where the remittance is chargeable under the Act, and the assessee could bona fide treat the payments as outside Indian taxability. On that basis, there was no default under Chapter XVII-B and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>