<?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 (10) TMI 262 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386778</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that payments to service providers outside India were not taxable in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The retrospective amendment did not impose an obligation to deduct tax at source. The appeal was dismissed as the service providers had no income in India according to the DTAA provisions, and the Revenue did not challenge this finding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2019 22:19:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 262 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386778</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that payments to service providers outside India were not taxable in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The retrospective amendment did not impose an obligation to deduct tax at source. The appeal was dismissed as the service providers had no income in India according to the DTAA provisions, and the Revenue did not challenge this finding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>