<?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 (8) TMI 88 - Authority for Advance Ruling</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215403</link>
    <description>A turnkey consortium that jointly bids for and performs an integrated project with common purpose and joint liability may be treated as an association of persons, even if work is internally divided and payments are separately arranged. Applying the look-at test, a composite contract for design, procurement, construction, installation and commissioning cannot be artificially split into offshore and onshore parts where the offshore elements are inextricably linked to execution of the project in India. On that basis, the contract receipts were taxable in India, and a separate permanent establishment analysis did not survive for independent consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 88 - Authority for Advance Ruling</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215403</link>
      <description>A turnkey consortium that jointly bids for and performs an integrated project with common purpose and joint liability may be treated as an association of persons, even if work is internally divided and payments are separately arranged. Applying the look-at test, a composite contract for design, procurement, construction, installation and commissioning cannot be artificially split into offshore and onshore parts where the offshore elements are inextricably linked to execution of the project in India. On that basis, the contract receipts were taxable in India, and a separate permanent establishment analysis did not survive for independent consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>