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 ✕
🔎 Case Laws - 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
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

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

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tax Ruling: Royalty Payment for Trademark License Taxable in India</h1> <h3>In Re : P. No. 22 of 1996</h3> The Authority for Advance Rulings determined that the royalty paid by 'C' to 'B' for granting a license and right to use a trademark in India is liable to ... - Issues Involved:1. Taxability of royalty paid outside India.2. Application of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961.3. Interpretation of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA.4. Consideration of statutory provisions versus DTAA provisions.5. Validity of the agreement between parties.Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Royalty Paid Outside India:The primary issue is whether the royalty amounting to US $5,295,756 paid by 'C' to 'B' for granting the licence and right to 'IC' to use the trade-mark in India is liable to Indian tax. The judgment concludes that the royalty is indeed liable to Indian tax.2. Application of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961:Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act specifies that income by way of royalty payable by a non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India if it is payable in respect of any right, property, or information used or services utilized for the purposes of a business or profession carried on by such person in India or for earning any income from any source in India. The judgment states: 'The applicant's case is bound to fail even on the language of cl. (c) of s. 9(1)(vi). The applicant's contention misses the second part of that clause which deems royalty to accrue or arise in India where it is payable in respect of the right, property or information used for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India.' Therefore, the royalty paid by 'C' to 'B' is deemed to accrue or arise in India.3. Interpretation of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA:Article 12(7)(b) of the DTAA between India and the USA states that royalties shall be deemed to arise in a Contracting State where the royalties relate to the use of, or the right to use, the right or property in one of the Contracting States. The judgment notes: 'The second interpretation is in line with the language of s. 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act. The concept of demand accrual or arisal of royalties under s. 9 is that it is related to the residence of the person paying the royalties or, irrespective of such residence, the place where the right to use the property in question is exercised.' Thus, the royalties are deemed to arise in India.4. Consideration of Statutory Provisions versus DTAA Provisions:The judgment emphasizes that where the statutory provisions are clear, they should be applied unless the DTAA provides a more beneficial provision to the assessee. It states: 'Where the terms of the agreement are absolutely clear, no doubt, they will prevail and even if there is a contrary provision in the statute the assessee can opt for the beneficial provision in the agreement. But where there is an ambiguity as in the present case in the provisions of the treaty and the terms of the treaty are susceptible to both interpretations, the interpretation which is harmonious with the provisions of the statute should be adopted.'5. Validity of the Agreement between Parties:The Department argued that the agreement between 'B' and 'C' is void as 'B' has furnished no consideration to 'C' for the royalty received. The judgment rejects this argument, stating: 'There are recitals in the agreement which show that 'C' is anxious to come into the Indian market with like products and wants to take over the mantle of the 'IC' as a step-in aid to introduce its own brands in the Indian market.' Therefore, it cannot be said that 'C' had nothing to gain from the agreement.Conclusion:The Authority for Advance Rulings concluded that the royalty paid by 'C' to 'B' is liable to Indian tax. The judgment states: 'For the reasons discussed above, the Authority is of opinion that the answer to the question raised should be in the affirmative.' Thus, the royalty amounting to US $5,295,756 is taxable in India.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found