<?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 (8) TMI 30 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441051</link>
    <description>Standard satellite-based services rendered using the assessee&#039;s own equipment were not royalty because customers did not obtain possession, control, or any right to use equipment or a process, and retrospective domestic amendments could not be imported into the treaty absent a corresponding treaty change. Disaster recovery uplinking and playout services were not fees for technical services because they were neither managerial, technical nor consultancy services and did not make available technical knowledge or know-how. On a project-wise treaty analysis, each Indian site was separate, neither exceeded the 183-day threshold, and no permanent establishment in India was established; no profits were attributable in India. A cost-to-cost reimbursement of licence fee, lacking profit element, was not taxable as royalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 30 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441051</link>
      <description>Standard satellite-based services rendered using the assessee&#039;s own equipment were not royalty because customers did not obtain possession, control, or any right to use equipment or a process, and retrospective domestic amendments could not be imported into the treaty absent a corresponding treaty change. Disaster recovery uplinking and playout services were not fees for technical services because they were neither managerial, technical nor consultancy services and did not make available technical knowledge or know-how. On a project-wise treaty analysis, each Indian site was separate, neither exceeded the 183-day threshold, and no permanent establishment in India was established; no profits were attributable in India. A cost-to-cost reimbursement of licence fee, lacking profit element, was not taxable as royalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>