<?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 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257212</link>
    <description>Shipping profits under the Indo-Swiss treaty were treated as income not specifically dealt with in the earlier distributive articles and therefore fell within the residuary article, allocating taxing rights to the State of residence. The Indian shipping agent was found to be a permanent establishment because it worked exclusively and dependently for the non-resident shipowner, but the ships themselves were not economically owned by or allocated to that establishment. On that basis, the income was not attributable to a right or property effectively connected with the permanent establishment, so the treaty benefit remained available and Indian domestic taxation did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257212</link>
      <description>Shipping profits under the Indo-Swiss treaty were treated as income not specifically dealt with in the earlier distributive articles and therefore fell within the residuary article, allocating taxing rights to the State of residence. The Indian shipping agent was found to be a permanent establishment because it worked exclusively and dependently for the non-resident shipowner, but the ships themselves were not economically owned by or allocated to that establishment. On that basis, the income was not attributable to a right or property effectively connected with the permanent establishment, so the treaty benefit remained available and Indian domestic taxation did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>