<?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>2024 (1) TMI 1181 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448782</link>
    <description>Under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, royalty and fees for technical services paid to a German resident beneficial owner were subject to the treaty cap under Article 12(2), and &quot;income tax&quot; in Article 2(3)(b) included surcharge. Because there was no material to show that the royalty and technical services income was effectively connected with a permanent establishment, it could not be clubbed with permanent establishment income to trigger the higher domestic surcharge threshold. The result was that the 5% surcharge on that income was not leviable, and the consequential demand for surcharge, cess and interest was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 1181 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448782</link>
      <description>Under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, royalty and fees for technical services paid to a German resident beneficial owner were subject to the treaty cap under Article 12(2), and &quot;income tax&quot; in Article 2(3)(b) included surcharge. Because there was no material to show that the royalty and technical services income was effectively connected with a permanent establishment, it could not be clubbed with permanent establishment income to trigger the higher domestic surcharge threshold. The result was that the 5% surcharge on that income was not leviable, and the consequential demand for surcharge, cess and interest was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>