<?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>1993 (8) TMI 97 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57613</link>
    <description>Engineering fees paid for supply of drawings, designs and documentation were taxable as fees for technical services under the amended India-Germany DTAA and the Income-tax Act, because the treaty definition covered technical, managerial and consultancy services and the assessee did not establish any exclusion based on construction or assembly activity. The alternative plea that the receipts were supplementary consideration for plant and machinery failed because the contract separately provided for engineering fees, and the assessee did not prove that description was unreal. The specific treaty article on royalties and fees for technical services prevailed over the business profits article, and receipt basis taxation of amounts actually received did not alter their taxability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 02:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 97 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57613</link>
      <description>Engineering fees paid for supply of drawings, designs and documentation were taxable as fees for technical services under the amended India-Germany DTAA and the Income-tax Act, because the treaty definition covered technical, managerial and consultancy services and the assessee did not establish any exclusion based on construction or assembly activity. The alternative plea that the receipts were supplementary consideration for plant and machinery failed because the contract separately provided for engineering fees, and the assessee did not prove that description was unreal. The specific treaty article on royalties and fees for technical services prevailed over the business profits article, and receipt basis taxation of amounts actually received did not alter their taxability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>