<?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>2010 (8) TMI 11 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77090</link>
    <description>Offshore supply of software under a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence was held not to give rise to royalty or fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the India-Netherlands DTAA. The arrangement conveyed only a restricted right to use the software for internal purposes; it did not transfer any rights in or over copyright, since ownership of intellectual property, source code, modification, derivative, reverse engineering and commercial exploitation rights remained with the licensor. Incidental copying or storage did not alter that character. The receipt also was not fees for technical services, because no technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes were made available, and installation, commissioning and training were outside the supplier&#039;s scope. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 11 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77090</link>
      <description>Offshore supply of software under a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence was held not to give rise to royalty or fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the India-Netherlands DTAA. The arrangement conveyed only a restricted right to use the software for internal purposes; it did not transfer any rights in or over copyright, since ownership of intellectual property, source code, modification, derivative, reverse engineering and commercial exploitation rights remained with the licensor. Incidental copying or storage did not alter that character. The receipt also was not fees for technical services, because no technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes were made available, and installation, commissioning and training were outside the supplier&#039;s scope. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>