<?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>2017 (4) TMI 49 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341079</link>
    <description>Reimbursements of payroll costs, professional and legal fees, and related payments to a foreign group entity did not trigger withholding under section 195 because they represented salary income already taxable in India in the hands of seconded employees and contained no income chargeable to the foreign recipient. A service permanent establishment did not create taxable profit on reimbursements, and the India-USA DTAA prevented treatment as fees for technical services because no technical knowledge was made available. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was unsustainable. Medical insurance premiums for de facto employees under the secondment arrangement were allowable business expenditure as employee benefit costs incurred for business purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:31:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 49 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341079</link>
      <description>Reimbursements of payroll costs, professional and legal fees, and related payments to a foreign group entity did not trigger withholding under section 195 because they represented salary income already taxable in India in the hands of seconded employees and contained no income chargeable to the foreign recipient. A service permanent establishment did not create taxable profit on reimbursements, and the India-USA DTAA prevented treatment as fees for technical services because no technical knowledge was made available. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was unsustainable. Medical insurance premiums for de facto employees under the secondment arrangement were allowable business expenditure as employee benefit costs incurred for business purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>