<?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 466 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215781</link>
    <description>Payments under a secondment arrangement were treated as taxable income of the foreign principal, not mere salary reimbursement, where the seconded employees remained on that principal&#039;s payroll, retained service benefits, and continued to be subject to its employment control. On that basis, the recipient company was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For payroll processing charges, the record was insufficient to determine the substantive tax character conclusively, so no final ruling was given on chargeability; however, withholding was still required at the applicable rates, subject to the outcome of assessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 466 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215781</link>
      <description>Payments under a secondment arrangement were treated as taxable income of the foreign principal, not mere salary reimbursement, where the seconded employees remained on that principal&#039;s payroll, retained service benefits, and continued to be subject to its employment control. On that basis, the recipient company was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For payroll processing charges, the record was insufficient to determine the substantive tax character conclusively, so no final ruling was given on chargeability; however, withholding was still required at the applicable rates, subject to the outcome of assessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>