<?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>2009 (12) TMI 1023 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274676</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the issue back to the assessing officer to examine the applicability of the DTAA provisions. The assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal held that the payments were &quot;royalty&quot; and subject to tax deduction at source, but the assessee could potentially benefit from the DTAA provisions, which needed further examination by the assessing officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:48:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 1023 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274676</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the issue back to the assessing officer to examine the applicability of the DTAA provisions. The assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal held that the payments were &quot;royalty&quot; and subject to tax deduction at source, but the assessee could potentially benefit from the DTAA provisions, which needed further examination by the assessing officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>