<?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 (12) TMI 1456 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372687</link>
    <description>Payment to a non-resident for third-party certification of oil and gas reserves was held not to be taxable as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the India-USA DTAA because the services were rendered outside India and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the recipient. In the absence of this make-available element, the receipt could not be taxed on that basis, and, with no permanent establishment shown in India, it could not be assessed as business profits either. The alternative contention on section 44BB was not examined after the principal issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and no tax was required to be withheld at source on the remittance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:01:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1456 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372687</link>
      <description>Payment to a non-resident for third-party certification of oil and gas reserves was held not to be taxable as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the India-USA DTAA because the services were rendered outside India and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the recipient. In the absence of this make-available element, the receipt could not be taxed on that basis, and, with no permanent establishment shown in India, it could not be assessed as business profits either. The alternative contention on section 44BB was not examined after the principal issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and no tax was required to be withheld at source on the remittance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>