<?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 (4) TMI 794 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258913</link>
    <description>Data storage space charges paid to a non-resident were treated as business income outside Indian tax net where the recipient had no permanent establishment in India and the payment was not shown to be consideration for use of equipment, royalty, or fees for technical services; on that basis, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source was deleted. On the exemption issue, section 10B relief was held to require approval as a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking by the competent statutory Board, and STPI approval alone was insufficient. The alternative claim under section 10A was not examined below, so the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of section 10B and, if necessary, section 10A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 794 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258913</link>
      <description>Data storage space charges paid to a non-resident were treated as business income outside Indian tax net where the recipient had no permanent establishment in India and the payment was not shown to be consideration for use of equipment, royalty, or fees for technical services; on that basis, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source was deleted. On the exemption issue, section 10B relief was held to require approval as a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking by the competent statutory Board, and STPI approval alone was insufficient. The alternative claim under section 10A was not examined below, so the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of section 10B and, if necessary, section 10A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>