<?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>2023 (5) TMI 700 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437893</link>
    <description>Compensation paid to terminate a cricket participation arrangement and a non-compete covenant was treated as a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in India, because the payment was linked to termination of a profit-making apparatus and no relevant operations were carried out in India. No dependent agent permanent establishment was proved under the applicable DTAA, as there was no evidence of habitual authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the foreign associations. As the underlying sum was not taxable in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195; the alternative reliance on sections 115BBA and 194E was also rejected on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 700 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437893</link>
      <description>Compensation paid to terminate a cricket participation arrangement and a non-compete covenant was treated as a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in India, because the payment was linked to termination of a profit-making apparatus and no relevant operations were carried out in India. No dependent agent permanent establishment was proved under the applicable DTAA, as there was no evidence of habitual authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the foreign associations. As the underlying sum was not taxable in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195; the alternative reliance on sections 115BBA and 194E was also rejected on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>