<?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>1981 (6) TMI 42 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55748</link>
    <description>Section 195 requires the payer to determine whether remittances are chargeable in the recipient&#039;s hands, and section 248 allows an appeal by a person who has deducted and paid tax while denying liability to deduct. The appellate authorities can examine chargeability for this limited purpose. On the treaty issue, receipts paid to a foreign consortium leader for coordination, supervision, technical advice, management and performance assurance were treated as taxable in India, not as industrial or commercial profits, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment. Grossing up at the deduction stage was rejected, and the applicable withholding rate was left for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:49:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (6) TMI 42 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55748</link>
      <description>Section 195 requires the payer to determine whether remittances are chargeable in the recipient&#039;s hands, and section 248 allows an appeal by a person who has deducted and paid tax while denying liability to deduct. The appellate authorities can examine chargeability for this limited purpose. On the treaty issue, receipts paid to a foreign consortium leader for coordination, supervision, technical advice, management and performance assurance were treated as taxable in India, not as industrial or commercial profits, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment. Grossing up at the deduction stage was rejected, and the applicable withholding rate was left for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>