<?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>2007 (1) TMI 108 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6604</link>
    <description>Consideration paid by Indian subscribers for access to and use of a Singapore-hosted cargo booking portal and its integrated server platform was treated as royalty under Article 12(3)(b) and section 9(1)(vi), because the portal and server were regarded as equipment used for commercial purposes. Training and helpdesk support provided in India were held ancillary to that use and also qualified as fees for technical services under Article 12 and section 9(1)(vii). The receipts were therefore not taxable as business profits under Article 7, and the alternative reliance on Article 8 failed. The amounts were taxable in India and subject to tax deduction at source.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 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=45687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 108 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6604</link>
      <description>Consideration paid by Indian subscribers for access to and use of a Singapore-hosted cargo booking portal and its integrated server platform was treated as royalty under Article 12(3)(b) and section 9(1)(vi), because the portal and server were regarded as equipment used for commercial purposes. Training and helpdesk support provided in India were held ancillary to that use and also qualified as fees for technical services under Article 12 and section 9(1)(vii). The receipts were therefore not taxable as business profits under Article 7, and the alternative reliance on Article 8 failed. The amounts were taxable in India and subject to tax deduction at source.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>