<?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>2018 (4) TMI 331 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358220</link>
    <description>Receipts from live audio-visual cricket coverage and delivery of match feeds were treated as outside fees for technical services and royalty under the India-UK DTAA and the Income-tax Act because the activity produced a finished broadcast product and did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the payer. The contractual technical specifications were only quality and compatibility requirements for seamless broadcasting, not a transfer of technology. The arrangement also was not royalty, as the payment was for production and delivery of live coverage rather than use of copyright, equipment or any process. On identical facts, the same view applied for both assessment years, and the additions were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:57:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 331 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358220</link>
      <description>Receipts from live audio-visual cricket coverage and delivery of match feeds were treated as outside fees for technical services and royalty under the India-UK DTAA and the Income-tax Act because the activity produced a finished broadcast product and did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the payer. The contractual technical specifications were only quality and compatibility requirements for seamless broadcasting, not a transfer of technology. The arrangement also was not royalty, as the payment was for production and delivery of live coverage rather than use of copyright, equipment or any process. On identical facts, the same view applied for both assessment years, and the additions were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>