<?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>Income from Indian Clients Not Classified as FIS; Tribunal Rules Favorably for Assessee Citing Precedents and Tax Treaty.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80678</link>
    <description>The assessee&#039;s income received from Indian customers as Fee for Technical Services (FTS)/Fee for Included Services (FIS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was examined. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee provided user-specific services involving human intervention, beyond mere content services. However, the AO&#039;s findings were self-contradictory, acknowledging the assessee as an aggregation service provider but denying its role as a mere aggregator. The AO failed to establish that the assessee provided technical services through its online platform or transferred technical knowledge, know-how, or skills to enable independent utilization by recipients. Relying on pre.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:05:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Income from Indian Clients Not Classified as FIS; Tribunal Rules Favorably for Assessee Citing Precedents and Tax Treaty.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80678</link>
      <description>The assessee&#039;s income received from Indian customers as Fee for Technical Services (FTS)/Fee for Included Services (FIS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was examined. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee provided user-specific services involving human intervention, beyond mere content services. However, the AO&#039;s findings were self-contradictory, acknowledging the assessee as an aggregation service provider but denying its role as a mere aggregator. The AO failed to establish that the assessee provided technical services through its online platform or transferred technical knowledge, know-how, or skills to enable independent utilization by recipients. Relying on pre.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:05:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>