<?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>2004 (10) TMI 88 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32102</link>
    <description>A non-resident enterprise supplying electronically purchased business information reports was treated as earning business profits, not royalty, because the reports were standardized factual compilations and no copyright, know-how, or other intellectual property right was made available for use. The ruling also noted that the Indian distributor acted as an independent purchaser and reseller, without concluding contracts for the enterprise or creating a fixed place or dependent agency presence, so the treaty conditions for a permanent establishment in India were not met. As the income was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under Section 195.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 88 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32102</link>
      <description>A non-resident enterprise supplying electronically purchased business information reports was treated as earning business profits, not royalty, because the reports were standardized factual compilations and no copyright, know-how, or other intellectual property right was made available for use. The ruling also noted that the Indian distributor acted as an independent purchaser and reseller, without concluding contracts for the enterprise or creating a fixed place or dependent agency presence, so the treaty conditions for a permanent establishment in India were not met. As the income was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under Section 195.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>