<?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 (12) TMI 1353 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336708</link>
    <description>Software licensing receipts under the India-Netherlands treaty were held not to be royalty because the agreements granted only a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the software for internal purposes, without transfer of copyright or any exclusive copyright rights. Limited rights to make backup copies or modify source code for compatibility did not amount to copyright transfer. The receipts were therefore treated as business profits, and the more beneficial treaty treatment prevailed over the domestic deeming provision. The reopening challenge was not pressed, and the beneficial-owner grounds became academic and did not survive for substantive adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1353 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336708</link>
      <description>Software licensing receipts under the India-Netherlands treaty were held not to be royalty because the agreements granted only a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the software for internal purposes, without transfer of copyright or any exclusive copyright rights. Limited rights to make backup copies or modify source code for compatibility did not amount to copyright transfer. The receipts were therefore treated as business profits, and the more beneficial treaty treatment prevailed over the domestic deeming provision. The reopening challenge was not pressed, and the beneficial-owner grounds became academic and did not survive for substantive adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>