<?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 (3) TMI 1355 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282098</link>
    <description>Under the India-France tax treaty non-discrimination clause, the Tribunal followed earlier orders in the assessee&#039;s own case and coordinate bench rulings and rejected the claim to the domestic company and co-operative bank tax rate. On data processing fees booked between the Indian branch and Singapore branch, it held that a foreign enterprise and its branch or permanent establishment are not separate taxable units for this purpose, so an internal charge is a payment to self. Because the amounts were effectively connected with the permanent establishment, taxation was confined to business profits attributable to that permanent establishment; the addition was deleted and only partial relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:26:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1355 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282098</link>
      <description>Under the India-France tax treaty non-discrimination clause, the Tribunal followed earlier orders in the assessee&#039;s own case and coordinate bench rulings and rejected the claim to the domestic company and co-operative bank tax rate. On data processing fees booked between the Indian branch and Singapore branch, it held that a foreign enterprise and its branch or permanent establishment are not separate taxable units for this purpose, so an internal charge is a payment to self. Because the amounts were effectively connected with the permanent establishment, taxation was confined to business profits attributable to that permanent establishment; the addition was deleted and only partial relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>