<?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 (4) TMI 351 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212662</link>
    <description>Cross-border payments for advice, assistance and training were treated as fees for technical services under the India-French DTAA, because the agreement was substantively managerial and consultancy in nature and the protocol allowed reliance on the narrower India-US DTAA &quot;make available&quot; test for consultancy services. The consultancy element satisfied that test, while managerial services were independently taxable under Article 13. As the receipts fell within Article 13, tax at source was capped at 10% of the gross amount under the treaty, and the business-profits article did not apply. The permanent establishment argument was therefore irrelevant for taxing these receipts in India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 351 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212662</link>
      <description>Cross-border payments for advice, assistance and training were treated as fees for technical services under the India-French DTAA, because the agreement was substantively managerial and consultancy in nature and the protocol allowed reliance on the narrower India-US DTAA &quot;make available&quot; test for consultancy services. The consultancy element satisfied that test, while managerial services were independently taxable under Article 13. As the receipts fell within Article 13, tax at source was capped at 10% of the gross amount under the treaty, and the business-profits article did not apply. The permanent establishment argument was therefore irrelevant for taxing these receipts in India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>