<?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>2025 (6) TMI 135 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772022</link>
    <description>Cost-to-cost reimbursement of secondment charges was treated as neither fees for technical services nor fees for included services under the India-USA DTAA, especially where the secondees were taxed as salary in India and the same payment could not be taxed twice in different hands. Receipts for professional services were also held to fall within the treaty&#039;s professional services article, since that expression was read as inclusive and not limited to professions regulated by a statutory professional body; the make available test under fees for included services was therefore not decisive. The additions on both heads were deleted, while the penalty ground was left premature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 08:50:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 135 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772022</link>
      <description>Cost-to-cost reimbursement of secondment charges was treated as neither fees for technical services nor fees for included services under the India-USA DTAA, especially where the secondees were taxed as salary in India and the same payment could not be taxed twice in different hands. Receipts for professional services were also held to fall within the treaty&#039;s professional services article, since that expression was read as inclusive and not limited to professions regulated by a statutory professional body; the make available test under fees for included services was therefore not decisive. The additions on both heads were deleted, while the penalty ground was left premature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>