<?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 (3) TMI 751 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325567</link>
    <description>Software supplied with diamond scanning machines was treated as part of the machine sale because the software was embedded, not independently usable, and subject to strict contractual limits on copying, re-engineering, standalone use and transfer. The receipts were therefore not royalty under the India-Israel treaty, since royalty requires use of, or a right to use, copyright and a mere transfer of a copyrighted article is insufficient. Even if domestic law widened the royalty definition, the treaty definition prevailed as more beneficial and unamended. The receipts were characterised as business income and, absent a permanent establishment in India, were not taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2016 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 751 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325567</link>
      <description>Software supplied with diamond scanning machines was treated as part of the machine sale because the software was embedded, not independently usable, and subject to strict contractual limits on copying, re-engineering, standalone use and transfer. The receipts were therefore not royalty under the India-Israel treaty, since royalty requires use of, or a right to use, copyright and a mere transfer of a copyrighted article is insufficient. Even if domestic law widened the royalty definition, the treaty definition prevailed as more beneficial and unamended. The receipts were characterised as business income and, absent a permanent establishment in India, were not taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>