TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether tax was required to be deducted at source on payments made for software licences, IT support charges, lease line charges, web-based training fees and reimbursement of expatriate salaries, and whether the assessee could be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The payments for software licences were held to be for a copyrighted article and not for the use of copyright, so they did not fall within royalty under section 9(1)(vi). The amended domestic definition of royalty could not be extended to the DTAA where the treaty language had not changed, and the treaty position prevailed as being more beneficial. The IT support and related connectivity charges were found not to constitute royalty and no technical services were made available. Lease line charges were treated as mere use of data transmission facilities and, in the alternative, as reimbursement of expenses, so no withholding obligation arose. Web-based training fees were held not to be fees for technical services in the absence of any transfer of technology or making available of technical knowledge. Reimbursement of expatriate salaries was also held not to attract withholding where tax had already been deducted on the salary component.
Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on the disputed payments and could not be treated as an assessee in default; the demand and interest were deleted.
TaxTMI 
