<?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>2012 (2) TMI 98 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210465</link>
    <description>Specialised General Business Support Services covering finance, taxation, legal, IT, procurement and marketing support were treated as consultancy services because they involved specialised expertise and &quot;made available&quot; technical knowledge that the recipient could independently apply after the arrangement ended. The payments were therefore fees for technical services under Article 13.4(c) of the India-UK Tax Treaty and constituted income in the hands of the non-resident provider. The same payments were not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 13, because no right to use intellectual property or know-how was granted. As the receipts were taxable in India, withholding under section 195 applied despite the absence of a permanent establishment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 98 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210465</link>
      <description>Specialised General Business Support Services covering finance, taxation, legal, IT, procurement and marketing support were treated as consultancy services because they involved specialised expertise and &quot;made available&quot; technical knowledge that the recipient could independently apply after the arrangement ended. The payments were therefore fees for technical services under Article 13.4(c) of the India-UK Tax Treaty and constituted income in the hands of the non-resident provider. The same payments were not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 13, because no right to use intellectual property or know-how was granted. As the receipts were taxable in India, withholding under section 195 applied despite the absence of a permanent establishment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>