<?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>2015 (1) TMI 1127 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255928</link>
    <description>Indian companies incorporated and registered in India could not be excluded from Served from India Scheme benefits merely because their shareholders were foreign. The Delhi High Court reasoning treats the company as a separate juristic person and reads the policy term &quot;Indian Service Providers&quot; according to its plain meaning, without inquiry into shareholder nationality. It also holds that the DGFT&#039;s interpretative power cannot be used to add a new eligibility condition or narrow clear policy language. On that basis, the additional shareholder-nationality requirement was impermissible, and the petitioners were entitled to the scheme benefits for the relevant periods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1127 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255928</link>
      <description>Indian companies incorporated and registered in India could not be excluded from Served from India Scheme benefits merely because their shareholders were foreign. The Delhi High Court reasoning treats the company as a separate juristic person and reads the policy term &quot;Indian Service Providers&quot; according to its plain meaning, without inquiry into shareholder nationality. It also holds that the DGFT&#039;s interpretative power cannot be used to add a new eligibility condition or narrow clear policy language. On that basis, the additional shareholder-nationality requirement was impermissible, and the petitioners were entitled to the scheme benefits for the relevant periods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>