<?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>2023 (2) TMI 22 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433507</link>
    <description>Payments for purchase and resale of online advertisement space under the AdWords distribution arrangement were treated as commercial consideration, not royalty, because the assessee acted only as a non-exclusive distributor and no copyright or similar rights in the underlying program, brand features, confidential information or software technology were transferred. The India-Ireland DTAA was applied as the more beneficial treaty provision, so the payments were not taxable as royalty under the treaty or the Income-tax Act. Once the payment was found not to be royalty, the consequential beneficial-ownership objection did not require separate determination, and no withholding tax liability arose on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=703243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 22 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433507</link>
      <description>Payments for purchase and resale of online advertisement space under the AdWords distribution arrangement were treated as commercial consideration, not royalty, because the assessee acted only as a non-exclusive distributor and no copyright or similar rights in the underlying program, brand features, confidential information or software technology were transferred. The India-Ireland DTAA was applied as the more beneficial treaty provision, so the payments were not taxable as royalty under the treaty or the Income-tax Act. Once the payment was found not to be royalty, the consequential beneficial-ownership objection did not require separate determination, and no withholding tax liability arose on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>