<?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>2001 (10) TMI 1153 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183867</link>
    <description>Payments for transponder hire charges and unlinking services were examined under the Income-tax Act and the India-UK treaty. The consideration was treated as business profits of the non-resident recipient, which had no permanent establishment in India, so it was taxable only in the State of residence under Article 7. It was also found not to constitute royalty or fees for technical services under section 9. Because the treaty position was more beneficial, section 195 withholding was not required and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be made for non-deduction of tax. The assessee was therefore not liable to deduct tax at source on the impugned payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:12:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1153 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183867</link>
      <description>Payments for transponder hire charges and unlinking services were examined under the Income-tax Act and the India-UK treaty. The consideration was treated as business profits of the non-resident recipient, which had no permanent establishment in India, so it was taxable only in the State of residence under Article 7. It was also found not to constitute royalty or fees for technical services under section 9. Because the treaty position was more beneficial, section 195 withholding was not required and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be made for non-deduction of tax. The assessee was therefore not liable to deduct tax at source on the impugned payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>