<?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>2011 (10) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208153</link>
    <description>Amounts paid for shrink-wrap or off-the-shelf software to non-resident suppliers were treated as royalty where the agreements granted a licence to load, copy, back up and use the software for internal business while ownership of the copyright remained with the supplier. The right to make such copies was regarded as part of the copyright, bringing the consideration within the statutory and DTAA meaning of royalty. Because the sum was chargeable to tax in India as royalty, tax was required to be withheld under Section 195. The absence of a permanent establishment did not change the result once the receipt was characterised as royalty rather than business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208153</link>
      <description>Amounts paid for shrink-wrap or off-the-shelf software to non-resident suppliers were treated as royalty where the agreements granted a licence to load, copy, back up and use the software for internal business while ownership of the copyright remained with the supplier. The right to make such copies was regarded as part of the copyright, bringing the consideration within the statutory and DTAA meaning of royalty. Because the sum was chargeable to tax in India as royalty, tax was required to be withheld under Section 195. The absence of a permanent establishment did not change the result once the receipt was characterised as royalty rather than business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>