<?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>2013 (8) TMI 942 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177758</link>
    <description>A non-resident Portuguese consultant&#039;s legal consultancy fees were treated as not chargeable to tax in India under the applicable DTAA because there was no fixed base or permanent establishment in India and the consultant stayed only 22 days, below the treaty threshold. As the treaty was more beneficial than section 9(1)(vii), section 195 withholding was not attracted, and the consequential demands under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:17:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 942 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177758</link>
      <description>A non-resident Portuguese consultant&#039;s legal consultancy fees were treated as not chargeable to tax in India under the applicable DTAA because there was no fixed base or permanent establishment in India and the consultant stayed only 22 days, below the treaty threshold. As the treaty was more beneficial than section 9(1)(vii), section 195 withholding was not attracted, and the consequential demands under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>