<?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 647 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216839</link>
    <description>An upfront appraisal fee charged for evaluating a borrower and project before any lending decision was held not to be interest under section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(5) of the India-UK DTAA, because it was independent of any money borrowed, debt incurred, or credit facility. The same fee was also held not to be fees for technical services under Article 13(4)(c), as the appraisal was undertaken for the lender&#039;s own decision-making and no technical knowledge, skill, know-how, or design was made available to the borrower. The receipt was therefore treated as business income, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, it was not taxable in India under Article 7.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 647 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216839</link>
      <description>An upfront appraisal fee charged for evaluating a borrower and project before any lending decision was held not to be interest under section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(5) of the India-UK DTAA, because it was independent of any money borrowed, debt incurred, or credit facility. The same fee was also held not to be fees for technical services under Article 13(4)(c), as the appraisal was undertaken for the lender&#039;s own decision-making and no technical knowledge, skill, know-how, or design was made available to the borrower. The receipt was therefore treated as business income, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, it was not taxable in India under Article 7.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>