<?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 (10) TMI 1262 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445039</link>
    <description>Support and maintenance receipts linked to software sales were examined under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The text states that Article 12(4)(a) applies only where such services are ancillary and subsidiary to royalty, so the provision could not apply because the underlying software licensing receipts were not taxable as royalty. It also states that Article 12(4)(b) requires the services to make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes for independent future use by the recipient, which these services did not do because any technical input was consumed in performance and did not endure for future self-use. On that basis, the receipts were not treated as fees for technical services under either limb.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1262 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445039</link>
      <description>Support and maintenance receipts linked to software sales were examined under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The text states that Article 12(4)(a) applies only where such services are ancillary and subsidiary to royalty, so the provision could not apply because the underlying software licensing receipts were not taxable as royalty. It also states that Article 12(4)(b) requires the services to make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes for independent future use by the recipient, which these services did not do because any technical input was consumed in performance and did not endure for future self-use. On that basis, the receipts were not treated as fees for technical services under either limb.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>