<?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>2009 (2) TMI 46 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32805</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue Department, setting aside the ITAT&#039;s judgment. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue Department, emphasizing the correctness of taxing the mobilization charges under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal clarity and adherence to statutory provisions in determining tax liabilities for non-resident companies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 46 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32805</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue Department, setting aside the ITAT&#039;s judgment. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue Department, emphasizing the correctness of taxing the mobilization charges under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal clarity and adherence to statutory provisions in determining tax liabilities for non-resident companies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>