<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1084 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271292</link>
    <description>A beneficial CBDT circular on section 10A computation was treated as binding, and losses of an STPI/eligible unit could be aggregated under sections 70 and 71 before applying the deduction scheme; the resultant loss could be carried forward under section 72, so set-off against non-STPI profits was permitted. The article also notes that where a Japan branch carried on business outside India as a permanent establishment and the technical service payment was incurred for that overseas business, section 9(1)(vii)(b) excluded deemed accrual in India; no income being chargeable in India, no TDS obligation arose and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1084 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271292</link>
      <description>A beneficial CBDT circular on section 10A computation was treated as binding, and losses of an STPI/eligible unit could be aggregated under sections 70 and 71 before applying the deduction scheme; the resultant loss could be carried forward under section 72, so set-off against non-STPI profits was permitted. The article also notes that where a Japan branch carried on business outside India as a permanent establishment and the technical service payment was incurred for that overseas business, section 9(1)(vii)(b) excluded deemed accrual in India; no income being chargeable in India, no TDS obligation arose and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>