<?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>2006 (11) TMI 138 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6597</link>
    <description>Secondment payments to a foreign company were examined to determine whether they were mere salary reimbursements or consideration for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the DTAA. The Authority found that the foreign company retained control over the seconded personnel, including the power to replace them, and that the applicant was bound to bear the costs arising from the secondment. The reimbursement label was held not to be decisive, and the foreign company was treated as the real employer. The payments were therefore characterised as fees for technical services, including provision of technical or other personnel, rather than salary income, and were subject to tax withholding under section 195.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 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=45680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 138 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6597</link>
      <description>Secondment payments to a foreign company were examined to determine whether they were mere salary reimbursements or consideration for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the DTAA. The Authority found that the foreign company retained control over the seconded personnel, including the power to replace them, and that the applicant was bound to bear the costs arising from the secondment. The reimbursement label was held not to be decisive, and the foreign company was treated as the real employer. The payments were therefore characterised as fees for technical services, including provision of technical or other personnel, rather than salary income, and were subject to tax withholding under section 195.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>