<?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>1998 (11) TMI 663 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179826</link>
    <description>Professional consultancy fees paid to a German non-resident were treated as professional services under article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA, and because the services were rendered from abroad without a fixed base in India or a stay of 120 days in the relevant year, the income was not taxable in India. The ruling rejected reliance on article 12 as the more specific treaty rule in article 14 governed the receipts. As the fees were not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction was required under section 195 on that component. By contrast, sitting fees and similar director-related payments fell within article 16, were taxable in India, and attracted withholding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:50:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 663 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179826</link>
      <description>Professional consultancy fees paid to a German non-resident were treated as professional services under article 14 of the India-Germany DTAA, and because the services were rendered from abroad without a fixed base in India or a stay of 120 days in the relevant year, the income was not taxable in India. The ruling rejected reliance on article 12 as the more specific treaty rule in article 14 governed the receipts. As the fees were not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction was required under section 195 on that component. By contrast, sitting fees and similar director-related payments fell within article 16, were taxable in India, and attracted withholding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>