<?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>2024 (1) TMI 490 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448091</link>
    <description>Receipts from loyalty programme, reservation, marketing and blackberry services under separate hotel-related agreements were treated as business income because they did not involve any transfer of a right to use intellectual property, equipment, process or technical knowledge. The treaty analysis under the India-Singapore DTAA held that the payments were not royalty under Article 12(3), Article 12(4)(a) did not apply because the services were not ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the royalty-bearing right, and Article 12(4)(b) failed because no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process was made available. The receipts were therefore not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 490 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448091</link>
      <description>Receipts from loyalty programme, reservation, marketing and blackberry services under separate hotel-related agreements were treated as business income because they did not involve any transfer of a right to use intellectual property, equipment, process or technical knowledge. The treaty analysis under the India-Singapore DTAA held that the payments were not royalty under Article 12(3), Article 12(4)(a) did not apply because the services were not ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the royalty-bearing right, and Article 12(4)(b) failed because no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process was made available. The receipts were therefore not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>