<?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 (1) TMI 911 - ITAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208368</link>
    <description>Technology transfer payments to a Singapore entity were treated as fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA because the arrangement satisfied the make-available test: it transmitted technical knowledge, experience, skill and know-how enabling independent use of the gravity water purification technology, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was upheld. By contrast, payments for public relations, liaison, co-ordination, design, marketing, support, advisory, training and planning functions were not shown on the evidence to be managerial, technical or consultancy services, and no technical know-how was proved to have been made available; the deletions by the CIT(A) were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 911 - ITAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208368</link>
      <description>Technology transfer payments to a Singapore entity were treated as fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA because the arrangement satisfied the make-available test: it transmitted technical knowledge, experience, skill and know-how enabling independent use of the gravity water purification technology, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was upheld. By contrast, payments for public relations, liaison, co-ordination, design, marketing, support, advisory, training and planning functions were not shown on the evidence to be managerial, technical or consultancy services, and no technical know-how was proved to have been made available; the deletions by the CIT(A) were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>