<?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 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33855</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, determining that the technical supervision fees received were akin to management charges and not exempt as commercial profits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Sweden. The court&#039;s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the DTAA provisions and specific agreement clauses, ultimately denying the exemption claim for taxation on the technical service fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33855</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, determining that the technical supervision fees received were akin to management charges and not exempt as commercial profits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Sweden. The court&#039;s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the DTAA provisions and specific agreement clauses, ultimately denying the exemption claim for taxation on the technical service fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>