<?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 (8) TMI 850 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365378</link>
    <description>Interest paid by an Indian branch of a foreign bank to its overseas head office was treated as deductible in computing the income of the Indian permanent establishment, because the India-Japan treaty protocol to Article 7(3) allowed deduction of interest on funds advanced in the course of banking business and the payment was not treated as a payment to self. The corresponding interest received by the head office from the Indian branch was held not chargeable to tax in India under the domestic law and treaty position followed by the Tribunal. The notice objection under section 163 was treated as ancillary and did not affect the substantive relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:57:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 850 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365378</link>
      <description>Interest paid by an Indian branch of a foreign bank to its overseas head office was treated as deductible in computing the income of the Indian permanent establishment, because the India-Japan treaty protocol to Article 7(3) allowed deduction of interest on funds advanced in the course of banking business and the payment was not treated as a payment to self. The corresponding interest received by the head office from the Indian branch was held not chargeable to tax in India under the domestic law and treaty position followed by the Tribunal. The notice objection under section 163 was treated as ancillary and did not affect the substantive relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>