<?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 (9) TMI 133 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216319</link>
    <description>Installation and commissioning charges paid for a SCADA system were treated as ancillary and subsidiary to the related supply contract, because the agreements were connected, executed on the same date and tied to the same letter of intent. On those facts, the consideration did not amount to fees for included services under Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Canada DTAA and was not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident recipient. Tax was therefore not required to be withheld, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted. Separately, the incidental expense disallowance was restricted to 25% on the same factual basis as the earlier year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 133 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216319</link>
      <description>Installation and commissioning charges paid for a SCADA system were treated as ancillary and subsidiary to the related supply contract, because the agreements were connected, executed on the same date and tied to the same letter of intent. On those facts, the consideration did not amount to fees for included services under Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Canada DTAA and was not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident recipient. Tax was therefore not required to be withheld, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted. Separately, the incidental expense disallowance was restricted to 25% on the same factual basis as the earlier year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>