<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1420 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464269</link>
    <description>ITAT CHENNAI - AT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s finding that export commission payments to overseas agents did not constitute fees for technical services under s.9(1)(vii), rejecting the AO&#039;s TDS demand for s.195. On development charges for SIPCOT 99-year leasehold, the tribunal agreed that the 5% annual retention credited by the lessor reduces the lump-sum development charge and is properly expensed annually, not required to be amortized, so disallowance was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:49:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1420 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464269</link>
      <description>ITAT CHENNAI - AT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s finding that export commission payments to overseas agents did not constitute fees for technical services under s.9(1)(vii), rejecting the AO&#039;s TDS demand for s.195. On development charges for SIPCOT 99-year leasehold, the tribunal agreed that the 5% annual retention credited by the lessor reduces the lump-sum development charge and is properly expensed annually, not required to be amortized, so disallowance was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>