<?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>2018 (12) TMI 2029 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465597</link>
    <description>Disallowance under s.40(a)(i) turned on whether cross-border payments by a professional firm to foreign associates were chargeable to tax in India, requiring TDS. For US/UK recipients, the &quot;make available&quot; condition for FTS was not met and, absent PE/fixed base in India, receipts were treated as independent personal services under the applicable DTAA; hence no taxability in India and no s.40(a)(i) disallowance. For Singapore/Belgium recipients, services rendered outside India were held not to be FTS under the relevant DTAA and instead business profits under Article 7; with no PE in India, s.40(a)(i) was inapplicable. For Mauritius/Egypt/UAE/Sri Lanka/Malaysia recipients, treaties lacked an FTS article or services were not managerial/technical; payments were treated as independent personal services with no fixed base, so no TDS and no disallowance. Payment to the Swiss cooperative was protected by the principle of mutuality; Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:16:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 2029 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465597</link>
      <description>Disallowance under s.40(a)(i) turned on whether cross-border payments by a professional firm to foreign associates were chargeable to tax in India, requiring TDS. For US/UK recipients, the &quot;make available&quot; condition for FTS was not met and, absent PE/fixed base in India, receipts were treated as independent personal services under the applicable DTAA; hence no taxability in India and no s.40(a)(i) disallowance. For Singapore/Belgium recipients, services rendered outside India were held not to be FTS under the relevant DTAA and instead business profits under Article 7; with no PE in India, s.40(a)(i) was inapplicable. For Mauritius/Egypt/UAE/Sri Lanka/Malaysia recipients, treaties lacked an FTS article or services were not managerial/technical; payments were treated as independent personal services with no fixed base, so no TDS and no disallowance. Payment to the Swiss cooperative was protected by the principle of mutuality; Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>