<?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 (7) TMI 1135 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330537</link>
    <description>Consideration for software supplied through a distributor and sold as off-the-shelf software was treated as payment for a copyrighted article, not royalty, because no copyright, source code, or right to exploit the copyright was transferred. The limited licence allowed only internal business use and did not convey any rights comprising copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957. Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA was applied as narrower than the domestic royalty definition, and the retrospective expansion of section 9(1)(vi) was held not to change the treaty position without a corresponding amendment to the DTAA. The amount was therefore business income, not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1135 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330537</link>
      <description>Consideration for software supplied through a distributor and sold as off-the-shelf software was treated as payment for a copyrighted article, not royalty, because no copyright, source code, or right to exploit the copyright was transferred. The limited licence allowed only internal business use and did not convey any rights comprising copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957. Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA was applied as narrower than the domestic royalty definition, and the retrospective expansion of section 9(1)(vi) was held not to change the treaty position without a corresponding amendment to the DTAA. The amount was therefore business income, not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>