<?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 729 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331345</link>
    <description>Receipts from software bundled with diamond-scanning machines were treated as part of the sale consideration of an integrated system, not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3) of the India-Israel DTAA, because the software had no independent commercial use and no rights in the copyright were transferred. The distinction between a copyrighted article and a copyright right was applied, and the treaty definition of royalty was held to be narrower than the domestic law definition. A later amendment to section 9(1)(vi) could not expand the treaty meaning without a corresponding treaty amendment. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were also not taxable as business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:45:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 729 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331345</link>
      <description>Receipts from software bundled with diamond-scanning machines were treated as part of the sale consideration of an integrated system, not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3) of the India-Israel DTAA, because the software had no independent commercial use and no rights in the copyright were transferred. The distinction between a copyrighted article and a copyright right was applied, and the treaty definition of royalty was held to be narrower than the domestic law definition. A later amendment to section 9(1)(vi) could not expand the treaty meaning without a corresponding treaty amendment. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were also not taxable as business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>