https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240643 The Tribunal held that an objection to maintainability under section 248 could not be reopened in appeal because the Commissioner (Appeals) had already admitted the matter and the Revenue had not challenged that admission or filed a cross-objection. It further held that payments to a UK consultant for developing and transferring fabric designs fell within article 13(4)(c) of the India-U.K. treaty as fees for technical services, because the designs were to be made available for the assessee's use without restriction. The payment was therefore taxable in India and subject to tax deduction at source under section 195; both appeals were dismissed. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2013 09:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240643 The Tribunal held that an objection to maintainability under section 248 could not be reopened in appeal because the Commissioner (Appeals) had already admitted the matter and the Revenue had not challenged that admission or filed a cross-objection. It further held that payments to a UK consultant for developing and transferring fabric designs fell within article 13(4)(c) of the India-U.K. treaty as fees for technical services, because the designs were to be made available for the assessee's use without restriction. The payment was therefore taxable in India and subject to tax deduction at source under section 195; both appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240643