<?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>2018 (6) TMI 357 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361530</link>
    <description>Reimbursement of bank guarantee commission and other non-resident payments was held not to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i) where the recipients were not chargeable to tax in India and the treaty make-available test was not met, so no withholding under section 195 arose. Interest on fixed deposits placed out of surplus funds pending project resolution was treated as income from other sources, not business income. Expenditure on bank guarantee charges, professional fees and travelling during the project and arbitration period was allowed as revenue expenditure because business operations had not ceased and the outlay was incidental to continuing contractual obligations. Deemed export benefits already taxed in an earlier year could not be taxed again.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 09:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 357 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361530</link>
      <description>Reimbursement of bank guarantee commission and other non-resident payments was held not to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i) where the recipients were not chargeable to tax in India and the treaty make-available test was not met, so no withholding under section 195 arose. Interest on fixed deposits placed out of surplus funds pending project resolution was treated as income from other sources, not business income. Expenditure on bank guarantee charges, professional fees and travelling during the project and arbitration period was allowed as revenue expenditure because business operations had not ceased and the outlay was incidental to continuing contractual obligations. Deemed export benefits already taxed in an earlier year could not be taxed again.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>