<?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 (11) TMI 1642 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200915</link>
    <description>Accepted arm&#039;s length pricing of an international transaction was treated as sufficient to exhaust further attribution of profits in India, even where a permanent establishment was alleged. On that basis, no additional income could be taxed in India merely because the assessee was said to have a permanent establishment, since the cross-border transaction had already been remunerated at arm&#039;s length. The principle applied was that profits attributable to a permanent establishment cannot again be brought to tax where the related transaction has already been benchmarked at arm&#039;s length. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 05:20:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1642 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200915</link>
      <description>Accepted arm&#039;s length pricing of an international transaction was treated as sufficient to exhaust further attribution of profits in India, even where a permanent establishment was alleged. On that basis, no additional income could be taxed in India merely because the assessee was said to have a permanent establishment, since the cross-border transaction had already been remunerated at arm&#039;s length. The principle applied was that profits attributable to a permanent establishment cannot again be brought to tax where the related transaction has already been benchmarked at arm&#039;s length. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>