<?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>2010 (1) TMI 48 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35358</link>
    <description>A composite architectural consultancy contract requiring preparation of drawings, designs, specifications and project reports, together with continuing technical and supervisory obligations, was treated as a consultancy arrangement rather than an outright sale of drawings. The receipts were therefore characterised as fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the DTAA, even though drawings were electronically delivered and part of the work was subcontracted. On the facts, the enterprise&#039;s activities in India were limited and temporary, so no permanent establishment was found in India. Questions dependent on the existence of a permanent establishment accordingly did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 48 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35358</link>
      <description>A composite architectural consultancy contract requiring preparation of drawings, designs, specifications and project reports, together with continuing technical and supervisory obligations, was treated as a consultancy arrangement rather than an outright sale of drawings. The receipts were therefore characterised as fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the DTAA, even though drawings were electronically delivered and part of the work was subcontracted. On the facts, the enterprise&#039;s activities in India were limited and temporary, so no permanent establishment was found in India. Questions dependent on the existence of a permanent establishment accordingly did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>