https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754197 Interconnect usage charges received by a non-resident telecom service provider from Indian operators were analysed under section 9(1)(vi) and the India-Japan DTAA. The article states that the domestic royalty definition was read broadly, but the treaty definition remained narrower and prevailed where there was no transfer of intellectual property rights, no possession or control of equipment, and no exclusive right to use equipment. It also notes that a standard commercial telecom connectivity process was not a secret process. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were treated as business profits taxable only in the residence State, and therefore not taxable in India as royalty. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754197 Interconnect usage charges received by a non-resident telecom service provider from Indian operators were analysed under section 9(1)(vi) and the India-Japan DTAA. The article states that the domestic royalty definition was read broadly, but the treaty definition remained narrower and prevailed where there was no transfer of intellectual property rights, no possession or control of equipment, and no exclusive right to use equipment. It also notes that a standard commercial telecom connectivity process was not a secret process. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were treated as business profits taxable only in the residence State, and therefore not taxable in India as royalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754197