<?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 (4) TMI 342 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751161</link>
    <description>Receipts from sale of online advertisement space and related distribution services were analysed under the India-Ireland DTAA to determine whether they constituted royalty or fees for technical services in India. The treaty definition of royalty in Article 12(3) was treated as the governing and more beneficial provision, and the rights granted to the Indian distributor were found not to amount to transfer of copyright or rights under the Copyright Act. Use of Google advertising tools and brand features was held to be incidental to distribution and support functions, so the payments were not royalty or technical service fees. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were characterised as business profits not taxable in India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 342 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751161</link>
      <description>Receipts from sale of online advertisement space and related distribution services were analysed under the India-Ireland DTAA to determine whether they constituted royalty or fees for technical services in India. The treaty definition of royalty in Article 12(3) was treated as the governing and more beneficial provision, and the rights granted to the Indian distributor were found not to amount to transfer of copyright or rights under the Copyright Act. Use of Google advertising tools and brand features was held to be incidental to distribution and support functions, so the payments were not royalty or technical service fees. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were characterised as business profits not taxable in India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>