Exclusion of liability: the content of this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion and constitutes a personal opinion of the author. It is based on relevant laws and/or facts that are available at that time and that have been established with the necessary accuracy and reliability. Readers are requested to check and comply with the relevant provisions of the law, the latest judicial statements, circulars, clarifications, etc., before acting on the basis of the above letter. The possibility of other views on the object cannot be excluded. By using this information, you agree that the author / TaxGuru is in no way responsible for the authenticity, accuracy, completeness, error or any omission in this information for the acts arising therefrom. This is not a type of advertising or invitation to work by a professional. (4) Provisions on the elimination of double taxation: first of all, Article 23. Article 25 (mutual agreement) could also be classified in this category. The UN model gives more weight to the source principle than to the residency principle of the OECD model. In accordance with the principle of withholding tax, the articles of the model agreement assume that the source country recognizes that: (a) the taxation of foreign capital income takes into account the expenses attributable to income from income, so that such income is taxed net- (b) that taxation would not be sufficiently high to discourage investment, and (c) it would take into account the adequacy of the distribution of revenues with the country providing the capital.
In addition, the UN Model Convention embodies the idea that it would be appropriate for the country of residence to extend a double taxation exemption measure, either through foreign tax credits or exemptions, as in the OECD Model Convention. 5. The General Court also clarified that a distinction had been made between a commercial link and a permanent establishment. The latter is intended to determine the income of a non-resident under a double taxation convention, while the former is intended for the application of the Income Tax Act. With regard to offshore services, the Tribunal found that a sufficient territorial link between the provision of services and the territorial borders of India was necessary to make the income taxable. The whole treaty would not be due to the activities carried out in India. . . .