<?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 406 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211001</link>
    <description>ITAT held that payments received from Indian resellers for shrink-wrap software constituted consideration for sale of copyrighted articles, not &quot;royalty&quot; under s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Art. 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA. Relying on the Delhi HC ruling in DIT v. Ericsson AB, the Tribunal found that the software was an inseparable part of the GSM system and incapable of independent use, rendering the contract one for supply of goods. The receipts were characterized as business income. As the non-resident assessee had no PE in India, such business profits were not taxable in India under the DTAA. Appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 406 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211001</link>
      <description>ITAT held that payments received from Indian resellers for shrink-wrap software constituted consideration for sale of copyrighted articles, not &quot;royalty&quot; under s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Art. 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA. Relying on the Delhi HC ruling in DIT v. Ericsson AB, the Tribunal found that the software was an inseparable part of the GSM system and incapable of independent use, rendering the contract one for supply of goods. The receipts were characterized as business income. As the non-resident assessee had no PE in India, such business profits were not taxable in India under the DTAA. Appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>