<?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>Income Tax Act&#039;s Section 40(a)(i) deemed discriminatory, conflicts with Indo-Japan and Indo-US DTAA Articles 24(3) and 26(3).</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36999</link>
    <description>TDS u/s 195 - Since Section 40(a)(i) as it stood in AY 2006-07 continued to discriminate in the above manner and was inconsistent with Article 24(3) of the Indo Japan DTAA or Article 26 (3) of the Indo US DTAA, the Assessee was entitled to rely on the above DTAA provisions to claim deduction of the sums paid to entities in Japan and USA. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:30:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:30:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Income Tax Act&#039;s Section 40(a)(i) deemed discriminatory, conflicts with Indo-Japan and Indo-US DTAA Articles 24(3) and 26(3).</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36999</link>
      <description>TDS u/s 195 - Since Section 40(a)(i) as it stood in AY 2006-07 continued to discriminate in the above manner and was inconsistent with Article 24(3) of the Indo Japan DTAA or Article 26 (3) of the Indo US DTAA, the Assessee was entitled to rely on the above DTAA provisions to claim deduction of the sums paid to entities in Japan and USA. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:30:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>