<?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>2017 (10) TMI 55 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348900</link>
    <description>Offshore supply income of a non-resident is taxable in India only to the extent attributable to operations carried out in India, and no attribution arose where the binding jurisdictional ruling had already found no permanent establishment in India. Receipts from embedded software were treated as part of the hardware supply, not as royalty, because the transaction did not involve transfer of copyright or an independent software right. In light of the offshore income being non-taxable, interest under section 234B was treated as academic, and the Revenue&#039;s cross-objections on the limitation of benefits clause under Article 24 of the Indo-US DTAA required no separate adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 06:34:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 55 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348900</link>
      <description>Offshore supply income of a non-resident is taxable in India only to the extent attributable to operations carried out in India, and no attribution arose where the binding jurisdictional ruling had already found no permanent establishment in India. Receipts from embedded software were treated as part of the hardware supply, not as royalty, because the transaction did not involve transfer of copyright or an independent software right. In light of the offshore income being non-taxable, interest under section 234B was treated as academic, and the Revenue&#039;s cross-objections on the limitation of benefits clause under Article 24 of the Indo-US DTAA required no separate adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>