<?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 (3) TMI 1191 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191286</link>
    <description>Non-resident consultancy receipts were treated as fees for technical services under Article 12 of the DTAA because the invoices described the services as technical consultancy and the deputed employee&#039;s actual stay in India did not exceed 180 days for permanent establishment analysis. The Protocol also prevented attribution to a permanent establishment on these facts, so Article 7 and section 115A were not applied. Interest under section 234B was not sustained because the income was subject to tax deduction at source and binding High Court rulings barred the levy. The assessee succeeded on the principal taxability issue, while the Revenue failed on the interest issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:27:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1191 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191286</link>
      <description>Non-resident consultancy receipts were treated as fees for technical services under Article 12 of the DTAA because the invoices described the services as technical consultancy and the deputed employee&#039;s actual stay in India did not exceed 180 days for permanent establishment analysis. The Protocol also prevented attribution to a permanent establishment on these facts, so Article 7 and section 115A were not applied. Interest under section 234B was not sustained because the income was subject to tax deduction at source and binding High Court rulings barred the levy. The assessee succeeded on the principal taxability issue, while the Revenue failed on the interest issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>