<?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 (10) TMI 210 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413158</link>
    <description>Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on payment to a Mauritius resident for market survey services was held unsustainable. The India-Mauritius DTAA contained no specific fees for technical services article, so the payment fell to be examined under the treaty&#039;s residuary business profits framework; as the recipient had no permanent establishment in India, the amount was not taxable as business profits under the treaty. The obligation to deduct tax was also tested against the law existing when the payment was made, and a later retrospective amendment could not create a withholding liability that was not possible to comply with at that time. The addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 210 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413158</link>
      <description>Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on payment to a Mauritius resident for market survey services was held unsustainable. The India-Mauritius DTAA contained no specific fees for technical services article, so the payment fell to be examined under the treaty&#039;s residuary business profits framework; as the recipient had no permanent establishment in India, the amount was not taxable as business profits under the treaty. The obligation to deduct tax was also tested against the law existing when the payment was made, and a later retrospective amendment could not create a withholding liability that was not possible to comply with at that time. The addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>