<?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>2022 (12) TMI 700 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431583</link>
    <description>Article 7(1) of the India-Finland DTAA permits attribution to a permanent establishment only to the extent profits exist in the foreign enterprise. Where the Tribunal found that the enterprise had a global net loss, no profit could be notionally attributed to the alleged permanent establishment in India. On those facts, the questions on permanent establishment and profit attribution did not justify interference, and the issue was answered against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 700 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431583</link>
      <description>Article 7(1) of the India-Finland DTAA permits attribution to a permanent establishment only to the extent profits exist in the foreign enterprise. Where the Tribunal found that the enterprise had a global net loss, no profit could be notionally attributed to the alleged permanent establishment in India. On those facts, the questions on permanent establishment and profit attribution did not justify interference, and the issue was answered against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>