Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amounts received for technology, know-how and trademark under the agreement were taxable as royalty or as capital gains, and whether they were chargeable in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the India-Germany DTAA.
Analysis: The agreement had to be read as a whole to ascertain the real nature of the transaction. Although it used expressions such as assign, transfer and perpetual use, the assignee was subject to material restrictions on use, confidentiality, transfer to third parties, and territorial exploitation. The trademark expressly remained the exclusive property of the assessee, and the RBI approval was limited in duration. The transaction therefore did not amount to an outright transfer of the underlying rights. Under section 2(14) and section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, a transfer of capital asset requires passing of proprietary rights, whereas the present arrangement only permitted use of the technical information and trademark. On the treaty as well, the consideration fell within the definition of royalty under Article 12, and not within the capital gains article.
Conclusion: The receipts were royalty and not capital gains, and they were taxable in India under both the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the India-Germany DTAA.