<?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>2005 (9) TMI 225 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59351</link>
    <description>Freight paid to a Singapore shipping enterprise for carriage connected with Indian ports was treated as not chargeable to tax in India because the DTAA prevailed over the general charging and TDS provisions of the Income-tax Act. The voyage was regarded as an international voyage, with only a temporary deviation to Indian ports, so the shipping article governing profits from ships in international traffic applied and the income remained taxable only in Singapore. The enterprise also had no fixed place of business or other permanent establishment in India, and the residuary treaty article did not apply because the receipt was covered by specific treaty provisions. As a result, no obligation to deduct tax at source arose and the assessee-in-default demands were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 225 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59351</link>
      <description>Freight paid to a Singapore shipping enterprise for carriage connected with Indian ports was treated as not chargeable to tax in India because the DTAA prevailed over the general charging and TDS provisions of the Income-tax Act. The voyage was regarded as an international voyage, with only a temporary deviation to Indian ports, so the shipping article governing profits from ships in international traffic applied and the income remained taxable only in Singapore. The enterprise also had no fixed place of business or other permanent establishment in India, and the residuary treaty article did not apply because the receipt was covered by specific treaty provisions. As a result, no obligation to deduct tax at source arose and the assessee-in-default demands were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>