<?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 (8) TMI 504 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331120</link>
    <description>A distributor acting on a principal-to-principal basis, without authority to bind the foreign enterprise, does not create an agency permanent establishment under the India-Mauritius DTAA, so distribution income is not taxable in India on that basis. Transponder and uplinking charges paid to non-residents were treated as facility-based service payments, not royalty under the treaty, and the domestic expansion of royalty by the Finance Act, 2012 did not override the DTAA. Programming fees for live telecast rights were also treated as outside royalty, because they did not involve transfer or licence of copyright; accordingly, section 40(a)(i) disallowance was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:48:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 504 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331120</link>
      <description>A distributor acting on a principal-to-principal basis, without authority to bind the foreign enterprise, does not create an agency permanent establishment under the India-Mauritius DTAA, so distribution income is not taxable in India on that basis. Transponder and uplinking charges paid to non-residents were treated as facility-based service payments, not royalty under the treaty, and the domestic expansion of royalty by the Finance Act, 2012 did not override the DTAA. Programming fees for live telecast rights were also treated as outside royalty, because they did not involve transfer or licence of copyright; accordingly, section 40(a)(i) disallowance was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>