<?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 82 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10640</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled against the foreign national employee, denying exemption under section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the employee, deputed by an Italian firm to work in India, did not meet the requirement of being employed by the Indian firm conducting business in India to qualify for the exemption. The decision emphasized the necessity of the individual&#039;s employment status with the Indian firm for claiming the exemption on salary and perquisites under the specified section.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10640</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled against the foreign national employee, denying exemption under section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the employee, deputed by an Italian firm to work in India, did not meet the requirement of being employed by the Indian firm conducting business in India to qualify for the exemption. The decision emphasized the necessity of the individual&#039;s employment status with the Indian firm for claiming the exemption on salary and perquisites under the specified section.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>