<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1227 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290685</link>
    <description>Receipts from sale of off-the-shelf software and related maintenance, support and upgrade services were held not to be royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the India-Finland Tax Treaty. The Tribunal found that distributors had only a non-exclusive right to market and distribute the software, with no source code access, no right to modify or reproduce the software, and no right to exploit the underlying copyright; the payments were therefore for sale of copyrighted articles, not for transfer of copyright or a right to use it. It further held that the treaty&#039;s royalty definition was exhaustive and could not be expanded by retrospective domestic amendments absent a corresponding treaty change, so the receipts were taxed as business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1227 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290685</link>
      <description>Receipts from sale of off-the-shelf software and related maintenance, support and upgrade services were held not to be royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the India-Finland Tax Treaty. The Tribunal found that distributors had only a non-exclusive right to market and distribute the software, with no source code access, no right to modify or reproduce the software, and no right to exploit the underlying copyright; the payments were therefore for sale of copyrighted articles, not for transfer of copyright or a right to use it. It further held that the treaty&#039;s royalty definition was exhaustive and could not be expanded by retrospective domestic amendments absent a corresponding treaty change, so the receipts were taxed as business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>