<?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 (5) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212965</link>
    <description>Reinsurance brokerage or commission received by an international reinsurance intermediary was not taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act read with article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK tax treaty because the services were limited to arranging reinsurance cover and passing communications between parties. No technical knowledge, skill, know-how, process, technical plan or technical design was made available to the Indian insurance companies, so the make available condition was not satisfied. The High Court treated these findings as factual and found no perversity to justify interference under section 260A, leaving the receipts outside FTS treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212965</link>
      <description>Reinsurance brokerage or commission received by an international reinsurance intermediary was not taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act read with article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK tax treaty because the services were limited to arranging reinsurance cover and passing communications between parties. No technical knowledge, skill, know-how, process, technical plan or technical design was made available to the Indian insurance companies, so the make available condition was not satisfied. The High Court treated these findings as factual and found no perversity to justify interference under section 260A, leaving the receipts outside FTS treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>