<?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>2021 (7) TMI 46 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409204</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld that Standby Maintenance Charges were not &#039;Fees for Technical Services&#039; but business income. It disagreed with treating the entire turnover from Indian parties as taxable in India, instead directing calculation based on the proportion of cable length in India. The revenue&#039;s argument that the charges were FTS was rejected, emphasizing they were for infrastructure maintenance, not technical services. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 46 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409204</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld that Standby Maintenance Charges were not &#039;Fees for Technical Services&#039; but business income. It disagreed with treating the entire turnover from Indian parties as taxable in India, instead directing calculation based on the proportion of cable length in India. The revenue&#039;s argument that the charges were FTS was rejected, emphasizing they were for infrastructure maintenance, not technical services. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>