<?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 (8) TMI 157 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383968</link>
    <description>A notified double taxation avoidance agreement prevails over the Income-tax Act under section 90(2) when it is more beneficial to the assessee. On the stated facts, fees for included services were taxable only if technical knowledge was made available, and that condition was not satisfied. The payment therefore was not chargeable to tax in India, and the related disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 157 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383968</link>
      <description>A notified double taxation avoidance agreement prevails over the Income-tax Act under section 90(2) when it is more beneficial to the assessee. On the stated facts, fees for included services were taxable only if technical knowledge was made available, and that condition was not satisfied. The payment therefore was not chargeable to tax in India, and the related disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>