<?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>1996 (4) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17420</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, determining that 20% of the fee of 2,04,032 Swiss francs was taxable as royalty. The court clarified the distinction between technical services fees and royalty, holding that while technical services fees may be exempt under certain conditions, royalty remains taxable. The judgment highlights the significance of comprehending agreement terms and their implications under tax law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:47:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17420</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, determining that 20% of the fee of 2,04,032 Swiss francs was taxable as royalty. The court clarified the distinction between technical services fees and royalty, holding that while technical services fees may be exempt under certain conditions, royalty remains taxable. The judgment highlights the significance of comprehending agreement terms and their implications under tax law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>