<?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>1996 (5) TMI 443 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306900</link>
    <description>Payments for construction supervision, erection, pre-commissioning, commissioning, bid evaluation, work-order preparation, coordination, and practical training were treated as management charges rather than mere technical or consultancy services. On reading the agreement as a whole, the tribunal held that the recipient undertook control and handling of project activities and assumed responsibility for completion of the plant, so the fees fell within the treaty exclusion from industrial or commercial profits and were taxable in India. The argument based on consistent treatment in earlier years failed because each assessment year is a separate unit and there is no res judicata in income-tax proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Mar 2023 11:42:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=706420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 443 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306900</link>
      <description>Payments for construction supervision, erection, pre-commissioning, commissioning, bid evaluation, work-order preparation, coordination, and practical training were treated as management charges rather than mere technical or consultancy services. On reading the agreement as a whole, the tribunal held that the recipient undertook control and handling of project activities and assumed responsibility for completion of the plant, so the fees fell within the treaty exclusion from industrial or commercial profits and were taxable in India. The argument based on consistent treatment in earlier years failed because each assessment year is a separate unit and there is no res judicata in income-tax proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>