<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1365 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281739</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether Article 12(2) or Article 12(5) of the applicable treaty governed the tax treatment in the cases, but the SC declined to examine that issue on the facts presented. The special leave petitions were dismissed, and the Court expressly kept the question of law open. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:02:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1365 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281739</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether Article 12(2) or Article 12(5) of the applicable treaty governed the tax treatment in the cases, but the SC declined to examine that issue on the facts presented. The special leave petitions were dismissed, and the Court expressly kept the question of law open. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>