https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235567 The Tribunal concluded that payments under Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Franchise Agreement and ISMA were not considered "royalties" under Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as they were contributions for marketing activities, not for the use of an existing property. The Tribunal also determined that these payments could not be classified as reimbursements without evidence showing they equaled actual expenses incurred. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to evaluate the taxability of these payments under Article 7 of the DTAA, considering the presence of a permanent establishment in India. en-us Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235567 The Tribunal concluded that payments under Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Franchise Agreement and ISMA were not considered "royalties" under Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as they were contributions for marketing activities, not for the use of an existing property. The Tribunal also determined that these payments could not be classified as reimbursements without evidence showing they equaled actual expenses incurred. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to evaluate the taxability of these payments under Article 7 of the DTAA, considering the presence of a permanent establishment in India. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235567