<?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 1027 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342057</link>
    <description>Payments to non-residents for warehouse and logistics services rendered outside India were treated as business income not chargeable in India absent a permanent establishment, and the retrospective amendment to section 9(2) was not applied to expand withholding obligations for payments already made. Technical and engineering rework charges were not treated as fees for included services under the treaty because the services did not make available technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or a process to the recipient. The treaty provision, being more beneficial, prevailed over domestic law, so no tax deduction obligation arose under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:13:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1027 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342057</link>
      <description>Payments to non-residents for warehouse and logistics services rendered outside India were treated as business income not chargeable in India absent a permanent establishment, and the retrospective amendment to section 9(2) was not applied to expand withholding obligations for payments already made. Technical and engineering rework charges were not treated as fees for included services under the treaty because the services did not make available technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or a process to the recipient. The treaty provision, being more beneficial, prevailed over domestic law, so no tax deduction obligation arose under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>