Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 207 "Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      5 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 207 Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets special tax treatment for non-residents (other than companies) and foreign companies in respect of dividends, specified categories of interest, distributed income on certain instruments, income arising from units of mutual funds/UTI purchased in foreign currency, royalties and technical service fees. It prescribes specified tax rates for these incomes and limits deductions; the provision affects taxpayers who are non-resident individuals and foreign companies, as well as Indian deductors. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out special tax treatment for non-residents (not being a company) and foreign companies where their total income includes specified categories: dividends, certain interest receipts, distributed income, income in respect of units of specified mutual funds/UTI, royalty, and fees for technical services. The provision prescribes fixed rates (largely 20%, with exceptions such as 10% for IFSC unit dividends and 5% for certain infrastructure debt fund interest), and provides that the aggregate income-tax payable on the total income shall be the sum of the taxes specified for those income heads and the income-tax chargeable on the residual total income.

      The section applies when the total income of the non-resident includes any income in column B of the prescribed tables. For royalties and fees for technical services received in pursuance of specified agreements (post-31 March 1976), subject to approval or conformity with industrial policy, similar prescribed taxes apply.

      Interpretation

      The provision adopts a source-based, head-specific approach: particular income heads are assigned specific tax rates, and the aggregate tax payable is the sum of the taxes on those heads plus tax on the remainder of total income. Legislative intent indicated by the text is to provide certainty through fixed withholding/tax rates for certain cross-border payments to non-residents/foreign companies. The text distinguishes between specified low rates for targeted investment vehicles (IFSC, infrastructure debt funds) and higher standard rates for other passive income categories.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Sub-section (2) creates an exception-like framework for royalties and FTS where the income arises under agreements made after 31 March 1976 and either approved by the Central Government (if with an Indian concern) or conforming to then-current industrial policy. Sub-section (3) narrows the application of sub-section (2) for royalty payments that are consideration for transfer/grant of rights in copyright of a book to an Indian concern or in respect of computer software to a person resident in India: in those cases sub-section (2) applies "without application of provisions of clause (a) or (b) of that sub-section." Other provisos: definitions limiting "computer software" and cross-reference to section 59 for certain excluded incomes.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-resident (not being a company) receives dividends (not from an IFSC unit) and no other income. The dividend income is taxed at 20% as per Sl. No. 1. If that is the only income in the gross total income, no deduction under Chapter VIII is allowed. (Note: specific Chapter VIII content Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A foreign company receives royalties from an Indian concern under an agreement approved by the Central Government. Such royalties (other than section 59(1) income) are taxed at 20% under sub-section (2). If the royalty is for transfer of copyright in a book to an Indian concern, sub-section (3) applies and the provisions of sub-section (2) apply "without application of provisions of clause (a) or (b) of that sub-section." The exact operational consequence of that phrase is not further explained in the clause. (Further interpretive detail Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The provision cross-refers to section 9 for meanings of "royalty" and "fees for technical services", to section 59(1) for certain excluded incomes, to section 393(2) for rates applicable to certain interest/distributed income, and to Chapter VIII and section 263(1) for return filing and deduction rules. It also references Schedule VII and Schedule VII Table item numbers for identifying specified funds and mutual funds. The clause does not set out procedural rules or tax collection mechanics; those are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 207 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Table formatting and wording for income-tax payable: In Document 1 the column C heading is "Rate of Income-tax payable" and for the final row (Sl. No. 8) it reads "Rates in force." In Document 2 the corresponding column heading is "Income-tax payable" and the final row reads "Income-tax chargeable on such income."
        • Practical impact: the Act text (Document 1) appears to fix the phrase to indicate specified rates for listed items and uses "Rates in force" for residual income; the Bill uses a more general phrase. Substantively both convey that normal rates apply to residual income; difference is terminological and unlikely to alter tax computation in practice.
      • Sub-section (4)(a) - Definition of "computer software": Document 1 states "or any customised electronic data or any product or service of similar nature as may be notified by the Board, which is transmitted or exported from India to a place outside India by any means;" Document 2 states the same but omits the phrase "as may be" before "notified by the Board" and places a semicolon differently.
        • Practical impact: no substantive change to meaning; both leave scope to Board notifications.
      • Scope of disallowed deductions (sub-section (5)): Document 1 disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 58, 60 and 61 and section 93"; Document 2 disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 61 and section 93."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 excludes section 59 from the disallowance list (by omitting it when listing 28-58, 60 and 61), whereas Document 2's phrasing "28 to 61" would include section 59 within the disallowed range. This is a substantive drafting difference: Document 1 appears to preserve section 59 (which is referenced elsewhere in the section as describing certain excluded incomes) outside the blanket disallowance; Document 2 would disallow deductions even when income falls u/s 59 unless other text provides otherwise. Practical impact: potential change in deductible expenditures permitted against certain royalty/FTS incomes if section 59 incomes are intended to be treated differently. This may affect non-resident tax liabilities and treaty interpretations; however, the precise operational effect depends on interaction with section 59 and other provisions.
      • Sub-section (6) - Chapter VIII / Schedule references and treatment: Document 1 specifies "no deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII and Schedule XV" when gross total income consists only of the incomes listed; Document 2 states "no deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII" (no mention of Schedule XV).
        • Practical impact: Document 1 narrows allowances further by expressly excluding Schedule XV deductions in the single-income scenario; Document 2 does not include that express exclusion. This difference potentially alters whether certain Schedule XV deductions remain available. The practical effect depends on what Schedule XV contains (Not stated in the document).
      • Overall syntactic and typographical corrections: Document 1 shows tightened punctuation, clearer tables and explicit reference to Schedule XV, while Document 2 contains trailing editorial notes and minor inconsistencies.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 (Act) appears to be a cleaned-up final version; substantive differences of practical consequence are mainly the treatment of section 59 in the disallowance range (sub-section (5)) and the explicit Schedule XV exclusion in sub-section (6).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must correctly classify income under the listed heads (dividend, various interest types, royalty, FTS, distributed income, unit income) to apply the prescribed rates. Misclassification risks incorrect tax withholding and potential assessments. The cross-references to sections 9, 59 and 393(2) mean interpretive disputes may arise on the scope of "royalty" and "fees for technical services" as defined elsewhere. The treatment of deductions (disallowance u/ss 28-61 per this Bill text) creates a compliance risk where taxpayers expect to claim routine business deductions against such income but find them disallowed.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where reduced rates apply (IFSC dividends, infrastructure fund interest), taxpayers will need documentary proof (e.g., confirmation of IFSC unit status, Schedule VII fund identification) to substantiate entitlement. For royalty/FTS taxed under subsection (2), written evidence of Central Government approval of agreements or conformity with industrial policy will be essential. The clause does not specify particular forms or timelines for producing such evidence (Not stated in the document).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 207 prescribes head-specific fixed tax rates for non-residents/foreign companies on passive income heads (dividend, interest, royalty, FTS, distributed income, unit income).
      • Certain preferential rates apply (10% for IFSC unit dividends; 5% for qualifying infrastructure debt fund interest).
      • Royalties and FTS under specified post-1976 agreements attract 20% (subject to approval/policy conditions), with a further carve-out for certain royalty transfers under sub-section (3).
      • The Bill disallows deductions under a broad range of sections (28-61) for computing incomes listed, constraining offset of expenses against these incomes.
      • When such listed incomes form only the gross total income, deductions under Chapter VIII are barred.
      • The provision relies on multiple cross-references (sections 9, 59, 263(1), 393(2) and schedules) for definitions, exclusions and rates; interpretive disputes may arise at those intersections.
      • Specific procedural, evidentiary and administrative details (forms, withholding mechanisms, applicability in presence of tax treaties, relief provisions) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 207 Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax