<?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>2019 (7) TMI 1148 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383452</link>
    <description>Article 8 of the Indo-Singapore DTAA governs profits from the operation of ships in international traffic, while Article 24 applies only where the income is taxed in the other State by reference to remittance or receipt. The Tribunal noted that the assessee&#039;s reliance on prior material and the Maersk Mikage ruling was fact-specific, but the record here did not establish that the voyage income had been assessed in Singapore on an accrual basis or that the relevant tax treatment was proved by supporting evidence. The matter therefore required fresh verification by the Assessing Officer, and the demand could not be sustained on the existing record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1148 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383452</link>
      <description>Article 8 of the Indo-Singapore DTAA governs profits from the operation of ships in international traffic, while Article 24 applies only where the income is taxed in the other State by reference to remittance or receipt. The Tribunal noted that the assessee&#039;s reliance on prior material and the Maersk Mikage ruling was fact-specific, but the record here did not establish that the voyage income had been assessed in Singapore on an accrual basis or that the relevant tax treatment was proved by supporting evidence. The matter therefore required fresh verification by the Assessing Officer, and the demand could not be sustained on the existing record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>