<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1 - ITAT BOMBAY-L</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59732</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to re-examine the duration of each contract independently and provide a detailed, speaking order addressing the taxpayer&#039;s contentions. The Tribunal clarified that the aggregation principle should not apply unless the projects are interconnected or interdependent, and the actual work duration at the site should be considered for determining the existence of a PE.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2023 10:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1 - ITAT BOMBAY-L</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59732</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to re-examine the duration of each contract independently and provide a detailed, speaking order addressing the taxpayer&#039;s contentions. The Tribunal clarified that the aggregation principle should not apply unless the projects are interconnected or interdependent, and the actual work duration at the site should be considered for determining the existence of a PE.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>