<?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>1997 (8) TMI 517 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172484</link>
    <description>A foreign company&#039;s management services to an Indian joint venture were treated as continuing managerial services performed through its own personnel, with responsibility retained for nomination, replacement, suitability, and functioning of employees. The arrangement created a permanent establishment in India under article 5(2)(l) of the DTAA, and the receipts were therefore taxable as business profits under article 7. The services were held to be managerial, not technical or consultancy services, so they did not qualify as fees for included services under article 12. The objection based on article 12 failed, and the invoiced amounts were chargeable to tax in India as business profits attributable to the permanent establishment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 517 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172484</link>
      <description>A foreign company&#039;s management services to an Indian joint venture were treated as continuing managerial services performed through its own personnel, with responsibility retained for nomination, replacement, suitability, and functioning of employees. The arrangement created a permanent establishment in India under article 5(2)(l) of the DTAA, and the receipts were therefore taxable as business profits under article 7. The services were held to be managerial, not technical or consultancy services, so they did not qualify as fees for included services under article 12. The objection based on article 12 failed, and the invoiced amounts were chargeable to tax in India as business profits attributable to the permanent establishment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>