<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1651 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285093</link>
    <description>Receipts from sale of software products to an Indian distributor were held not to be royalty taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi) or the India-USA DTAA. The analysis followed earlier coordinate bench rulings in the assessee&#039;s own case that treated the payments as consideration for sale of copyrighted software, not for transfer of copyright rights. It was also noted that the later domestic law expansion of the royalty definition did not override the more beneficial treaty definition under Article 12(3). The challenge based on absence of a draft assessment order was left undecided because it became academic after the merits were resolved, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2019 06:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1651 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285093</link>
      <description>Receipts from sale of software products to an Indian distributor were held not to be royalty taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi) or the India-USA DTAA. The analysis followed earlier coordinate bench rulings in the assessee&#039;s own case that treated the payments as consideration for sale of copyrighted software, not for transfer of copyright rights. It was also noted that the later domestic law expansion of the royalty definition did not override the more beneficial treaty definition under Article 12(3). The challenge based on absence of a draft assessment order was left undecided because it became academic after the merits were resolved, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>