<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1786 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300982</link>
    <description>Limited access to an SAP system hosted outside India, without transfer of control, possession, ownership or copyright, was treated as use of a copyrighted article rather than royalty; domestic amendments expanding royalty could not override the unchanged India-Malaysia DTAA, so the receipt was taxable only as business profits and not in India in the absence of a permanent establishment. Related service receipts were also not taxable in India because the treaty had no separate fees-for-technical-services article and section 9(1)(vii) could not be imported through Article 3(2); the non-resident was entitled to the more beneficial treaty position under section 90(2). Interest under section 234B was not leviable on a non-resident where tax was deductible at source, and section 234D applied only to excess refund, not to section 244A interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 08:40:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1786 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300982</link>
      <description>Limited access to an SAP system hosted outside India, without transfer of control, possession, ownership or copyright, was treated as use of a copyrighted article rather than royalty; domestic amendments expanding royalty could not override the unchanged India-Malaysia DTAA, so the receipt was taxable only as business profits and not in India in the absence of a permanent establishment. Related service receipts were also not taxable in India because the treaty had no separate fees-for-technical-services article and section 9(1)(vii) could not be imported through Article 3(2); the non-resident was entitled to the more beneficial treaty position under section 90(2). Interest under section 234B was not leviable on a non-resident where tax was deductible at source, and section 234D applied only to excess refund, not to section 244A interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>