<?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>2016 (1) TMI 131 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270339</link>
    <description>Advertisement revenue earned by a foreign television enterprise was taxable in India as business profits attributable to a dependent agent permanent establishment. Although the airtime-selling agreement was labelled principal to principal and provided fixed consideration, substance prevailed: advertisement airtime was not independently usable by the Indian counterparty, which merely canvassed advertisements for telecast on the foreign enterprise&#039;s channels. The distribution-fee characterisation as royalty required fresh examination under the agreement, treaty, domestic law and later statutory clarification concerning &quot;process&quot;; that issue was remanded for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 131 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270339</link>
      <description>Advertisement revenue earned by a foreign television enterprise was taxable in India as business profits attributable to a dependent agent permanent establishment. Although the airtime-selling agreement was labelled principal to principal and provided fixed consideration, substance prevailed: advertisement airtime was not independently usable by the Indian counterparty, which merely canvassed advertisements for telecast on the foreign enterprise&#039;s channels. The distribution-fee characterisation as royalty required fresh examination under the agreement, treaty, domestic law and later statutory clarification concerning &quot;process&quot;; that issue was remanded for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>