<?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 (11) TMI 783 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370440</link>
    <description>Software supply receipts were treated as business income rather than royalty because the arrangement did not transfer copyright rights; the customer received only a limited right to use the software as a copyrighted article, and the supplementary agreement and source-code issue did not change that character. On the same treaty-based reasoning, the Indian subsidiary was not regarded as a dependent agent permanent establishment, so the receipts were not taxable in India. Reimbursement of expenses was also not taxed as fees for technical services because the subsidiary was not treated as a permanent establishment for that purpose. The appeal was allowed on the basis of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier decisions in the same assessee&#039;s case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:00:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 783 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370440</link>
      <description>Software supply receipts were treated as business income rather than royalty because the arrangement did not transfer copyright rights; the customer received only a limited right to use the software as a copyrighted article, and the supplementary agreement and source-code issue did not change that character. On the same treaty-based reasoning, the Indian subsidiary was not regarded as a dependent agent permanent establishment, so the receipts were not taxable in India. Reimbursement of expenses was also not taxed as fees for technical services because the subsidiary was not treated as a permanent establishment for that purpose. The appeal was allowed on the basis of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier decisions in the same assessee&#039;s case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>