<?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>2014 (11) TMI 605 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253288</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the income received by a foreign company for hiring out dredging equipment to an Indian company is not taxable in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands. The court ruled that the amended DTAA provisions exclude such income from being classified as &quot;royalty&quot; under the Income Tax Act, and the foreign company did not have a permanent establishment in India. The decision favored the assessee, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 605 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253288</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the income received by a foreign company for hiring out dredging equipment to an Indian company is not taxable in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands. The court ruled that the amended DTAA provisions exclude such income from being classified as &quot;royalty&quot; under the Income Tax Act, and the foreign company did not have a permanent establishment in India. The decision favored the assessee, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>