<?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>2000 (10) TMI 8 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13998</link>
    <description>Payments under an agreement for transfer of technology, drawings, designs, engineering and limited site assistance were treated as royalty rather than fees for technical services. Reading the agreement as a whole and applying Explanation 2 to section 9, the consideration was held to relate to technology transfer and allied rights, not to independent managerial, technical or consultancy services. The limited site assistance described in the contract did not change the character of the payment. The amount was therefore taxable as royalty at 20% under section 115A, and the alternative classification as fees for technical services at 40% was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:26:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 8 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13998</link>
      <description>Payments under an agreement for transfer of technology, drawings, designs, engineering and limited site assistance were treated as royalty rather than fees for technical services. Reading the agreement as a whole and applying Explanation 2 to section 9, the consideration was held to relate to technology transfer and allied rights, not to independent managerial, technical or consultancy services. The limited site assistance described in the contract did not change the character of the payment. The amount was therefore taxable as royalty at 20% under section 115A, and the alternative classification as fees for technical services at 40% was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>