<?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>Treaty shipping profits, PE tests and refund interest under India-Mauritius DTAA addressed in the ruling</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101345</link>
    <description>India-Mauritius DTAA treaty shipping profits were denied because the assessee&#039;s own earlier years had already been decided against it on the same point, and that consistent view was followed. A fixed place permanent establishment was also not proved: the revenue had to show both disposal of the Indian premises and business activity through them, but the survey material showed only limited visits, agent-led operations, and no controlled space or real use by the non-resident. The Indian agent was treated as independent, so no dependent agent permanent establishment arose. As no PE existed, profit attribution to any alleged PE and aggregation of the two entities&#039; income failed. Refund interest was taxed at the treaty rate under the interest article.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Treaty shipping profits, PE tests and refund interest under India-Mauritius DTAA addressed in the ruling</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101345</link>
      <description>India-Mauritius DTAA treaty shipping profits were denied because the assessee&#039;s own earlier years had already been decided against it on the same point, and that consistent view was followed. A fixed place permanent establishment was also not proved: the revenue had to show both disposal of the Indian premises and business activity through them, but the survey material showed only limited visits, agent-led operations, and no controlled space or real use by the non-resident. The Indian agent was treated as independent, so no dependent agent permanent establishment arose. As no PE existed, profit attribution to any alleged PE and aggregation of the two entities&#039; income failed. Refund interest was taxed at the treaty rate under the interest article.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>