<?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>2018 (7) TMI 2213 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298078</link>
    <description>The Indo-Israel treaty&#039;s MFN protocol was treated as part of the treaty, so the later India-Portugal &quot;make available&quot; limitation for fees for technical services was read into the treaty without further negotiation. On the facts, the Israeli entity&#039;s supervisory, managerial and consultancy services did not transfer technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the assessee, so the make available test was not met. The amended right of appeal under section 248 was considered maintainable where the payer bore the tax and had paid it to the Central Government, and the objection to additional evidence was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Oct 2021 08:18:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 2213 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298078</link>
      <description>The Indo-Israel treaty&#039;s MFN protocol was treated as part of the treaty, so the later India-Portugal &quot;make available&quot; limitation for fees for technical services was read into the treaty without further negotiation. On the facts, the Israeli entity&#039;s supervisory, managerial and consultancy services did not transfer technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the assessee, so the make available test was not met. The amended right of appeal under section 248 was considered maintainable where the payer bore the tax and had paid it to the Central Government, and the objection to additional evidence was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>