<?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>2020 (6) TMI 406 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396031</link>
    <description>A corporate guarantee commission paid to a non-resident associated enterprise was treated as neither interest nor fees for technical services under the India-Netherlands DTAA. Interest under Article 11 requires a debt-claim and creditor-debtor relationship arising from provision of capital, which a contingent guarantee does not create. The guarantee fee also failed the Article 12 test because furnishing a corporate guarantee is a financial service and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction obligation arose under section 195, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 406 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396031</link>
      <description>A corporate guarantee commission paid to a non-resident associated enterprise was treated as neither interest nor fees for technical services under the India-Netherlands DTAA. Interest under Article 11 requires a debt-claim and creditor-debtor relationship arising from provision of capital, which a contingent guarantee does not create. The guarantee fee also failed the Article 12 test because furnishing a corporate guarantee is a financial service and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction obligation arose under section 195, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>