<?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>2013 (9) TMI 610 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237178</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing the appeals of the assessee and taxing the payments as royalty in both assessment years. The payments were deemed taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Germany. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the agreement indicated that the payments were for the use of technology and trademarks, not for their transfer, and therefore taxable in India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 610 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237178</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing the appeals of the assessee and taxing the payments as royalty in both assessment years. The payments were deemed taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Germany. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the agreement indicated that the payments were for the use of technology and trademarks, not for their transfer, and therefore taxable in India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>