<?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>2015 (5) TMI 235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259361</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered from Indian agents for use of the MaerskNet communication system were held to be reimbursements under a cost-sharing arrangement, not fees for technical services. The receipts carried no profit element and represented only the pro rata cost of maintaining and using an automated, software-based system essential to the shipping business. As there was no human intervention in the rendition of services, the payments did not constitute technical services in the statutory sense. The applicable treaty provisions, being more beneficial, prevailed over the domestic charging provisions, and the receipts were not taxable in India as FTS.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259361</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered from Indian agents for use of the MaerskNet communication system were held to be reimbursements under a cost-sharing arrangement, not fees for technical services. The receipts carried no profit element and represented only the pro rata cost of maintaining and using an automated, software-based system essential to the shipping business. As there was no human intervention in the rendition of services, the payments did not constitute technical services in the statutory sense. The applicable treaty provisions, being more beneficial, prevailed over the domestic charging provisions, and the receipts were not taxable in India as FTS.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>