<?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 (8) TMI 6 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34315</link>
    <description>Cost allocations paid by an Indian company to a US applicant were analysed under the India-USA DTAA by testing whether the services constituted fees for included services or business profits. The arrangement was found to be predominantly managerial, and it did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the Indian recipient; some activities were also characterised as stewardship or shareholder functions. In the absence of a permanent establishment, the receipts were treated as protected business profits rather than taxable fees for included services. As the underlying payment was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195 on the Indian payer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 6 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34315</link>
      <description>Cost allocations paid by an Indian company to a US applicant were analysed under the India-USA DTAA by testing whether the services constituted fees for included services or business profits. The arrangement was found to be predominantly managerial, and it did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the Indian recipient; some activities were also characterised as stewardship or shareholder functions. In the absence of a permanent establishment, the receipts were treated as protected business profits rather than taxable fees for included services. As the underlying payment was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195 on the Indian payer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>