<?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>2019 (12) TMI 1523 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS — MUMBAI BENCH (INCOME-TAX)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296781</link>
    <description>Consideration paid for exclusive access to a customer database, commercial experience and the right to offer ring back tone services was treated as royalty under the Income-tax Act and article 12(3) of the India-Brazil treaty. The AAR found that the payment was for information concerning commercial experience and rights in relation to that information, so it fell within the royalty definition and was taxable in India. The claimed source-outside-India exclusion was rejected because the relevant income-earning activities, including software development, customisation and testing, were carried on in India. The payment was also not accepted as fees for technical services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 09:18:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1523 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS — MUMBAI BENCH (INCOME-TAX)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296781</link>
      <description>Consideration paid for exclusive access to a customer database, commercial experience and the right to offer ring back tone services was treated as royalty under the Income-tax Act and article 12(3) of the India-Brazil treaty. The AAR found that the payment was for information concerning commercial experience and rights in relation to that information, so it fell within the royalty definition and was taxable in India. The claimed source-outside-India exclusion was rejected because the relevant income-earning activities, including software development, customisation and testing, were carried on in India. The payment was also not accepted as fees for technical services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>