<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (5) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62879</link>
    <description>Lump sum consideration for transfer of technical know-how was analysed under the Income-tax Act and the applicable treaty. The text explains that treaty provisions prevail over conflicting domestic provisions under section 90, and that the foreign recipient&#039;s business profits are taxable in India only if it has a permanent establishment, while royalty is taxable only if the payment fits the treaty definition. Because the agreement provided for transfer of know-how for use, exploitation and ownership on a non-contingent lump sum basis, without refund for non-use, the payment was treated as consideration for outright transfer rather than royalty. On that basis, the remittance was not subject to Indian tax deduction at source.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:18:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62879</link>
      <description>Lump sum consideration for transfer of technical know-how was analysed under the Income-tax Act and the applicable treaty. The text explains that treaty provisions prevail over conflicting domestic provisions under section 90, and that the foreign recipient&#039;s business profits are taxable in India only if it has a permanent establishment, while royalty is taxable only if the payment fits the treaty definition. Because the agreement provided for transfer of know-how for use, exploitation and ownership on a non-contingent lump sum basis, without refund for non-use, the payment was treated as consideration for outright transfer rather than royalty. On that basis, the remittance was not subject to Indian tax deduction at source.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>