<?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>2006 (8) TMI 121 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6594</link>
    <description>Consideration for an assignment executed outside India was held not taxable in India as either business income or royalty because the deed transferred only contractual rights and obligations, involved no transfer of technical know-how, patents, licence, secret formula or similar intellectual property, and lacked a real business connection in India for deemed accrual under section 9(1)(i). As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, the statutory precondition for deduction under section 195 was not satisfied, so no withholding obligation arose on remittance. The ruling therefore accepted the non-resident assignor&#039;s tax position and excluded both Indian taxability and source withholding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 121 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6594</link>
      <description>Consideration for an assignment executed outside India was held not taxable in India as either business income or royalty because the deed transferred only contractual rights and obligations, involved no transfer of technical know-how, patents, licence, secret formula or similar intellectual property, and lacked a real business connection in India for deemed accrual under section 9(1)(i). As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, the statutory precondition for deduction under section 195 was not satisfied, so no withholding obligation arose on remittance. The ruling therefore accepted the non-resident assignor&#039;s tax position and excluded both Indian taxability and source withholding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>