<?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>2005 (2) TMI 19 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6579</link>
    <description>The Authority rejected the application as it deemed not maintainable since it did not involve a non-resident applicant as required for an advance ruling. Consequently, the specific issues raised by the applicant regarding taxability of the loan as deemed dividend, relief under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and tax liability in India for deemed dividend income were not addressed in detail in the ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 19 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6579</link>
      <description>The Authority rejected the application as it deemed not maintainable since it did not involve a non-resident applicant as required for an advance ruling. Consequently, the specific issues raised by the applicant regarding taxability of the loan as deemed dividend, relief under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and tax liability in India for deemed dividend income were not addressed in detail in the ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>