<?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 (8) TMI 318 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397375</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee and DBPL were not Associated Enterprises under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee could not be treated as a Permanent Establishment of DBPL in India. Therefore, no profit accrued to DBPL in India, and the assessee was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed, and the demands raised by the Assessing Officer were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 318 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397375</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee and DBPL were not Associated Enterprises under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee could not be treated as a Permanent Establishment of DBPL in India. Therefore, no profit accrued to DBPL in India, and the assessee was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed, and the demands raised by the Assessing Officer were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>