<?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 (10) TMI 816 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217878</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee for assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, holding that the reimbursement of traveling expenses and living allowances should not be considered as fees for technical services. The expenses were found to be distinct from the fees for technical services based on the agreements and invoices, with no element of profit included in the reimbursements. The Tribunal&#039;s decision aligned with previous legal precedents, ultimately allowing the appeals for both assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 816 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217878</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee for assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, holding that the reimbursement of traveling expenses and living allowances should not be considered as fees for technical services. The expenses were found to be distinct from the fees for technical services based on the agreements and invoices, with no element of profit included in the reimbursements. The Tribunal&#039;s decision aligned with previous legal precedents, ultimately allowing the appeals for both assessment years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>