<?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 (11) TMI 507 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212564</link>
    <description>Reimbursement of market research es to a non-resident was treated as outside the scope of fees for technical services because the arrangement showed only a share of research expenditure, not technical assistance rendered to the payer. The correspondence and research report indicated a market research exercise, and the treaty test of &quot;make available&quot; was not satisfied since no technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how was passed on to the payer. As the payment was not taxable in the hands of the non-resident, the basis for treating the payer as the non-resident&#039;s agent also failed, and the consequential interest exposure under section 234B did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 507 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212564</link>
      <description>Reimbursement of market research es to a non-resident was treated as outside the scope of fees for technical services because the arrangement showed only a share of research expenditure, not technical assistance rendered to the payer. The correspondence and research report indicated a market research exercise, and the treaty test of &quot;make available&quot; was not satisfied since no technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how was passed on to the payer. As the payment was not taxable in the hands of the non-resident, the basis for treating the payer as the non-resident&#039;s agent also failed, and the consequential interest exposure under section 234B did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>