<?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 (8) TMI 957 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441978</link>
    <description>Offshore supply profits from rolling stock were not attributable to India where the contract was divisible, with separate cost centres, invoicing, and consideration for offshore and onshore work. The offshore supply activity fell within the foreign enterprise&#039;s own scope, and title to the goods passed outside India, so the related receipts did not arise in India for tax purposes. A fixed place permanent establishment also was not established because the Revenue had to prove that the foreign enterprise carried on business through the Indian subsidiary&#039;s premises and that those premises were at its disposal. No evidence of actual use or disposal was shown, so the burden to prove a permanent establishment was not met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=723289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 957 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441978</link>
      <description>Offshore supply profits from rolling stock were not attributable to India where the contract was divisible, with separate cost centres, invoicing, and consideration for offshore and onshore work. The offshore supply activity fell within the foreign enterprise&#039;s own scope, and title to the goods passed outside India, so the related receipts did not arise in India for tax purposes. A fixed place permanent establishment also was not established because the Revenue had to prove that the foreign enterprise carried on business through the Indian subsidiary&#039;s premises and that those premises were at its disposal. No evidence of actual use or disposal was shown, so the burden to prove a permanent establishment was not met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>