<?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>Tribunal Rules Interconnect Utility Charges Not &#039;Royalty&#039;; Taxable as Business Profits Without Permanent Establishment in India.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78630</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of characterizing interconnect utility charges (IUC) as &#039;Royalty&#039; for TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act and India-Japan DTAA. The revenue argued that the payments constituted &#039;Royalty&#039; due to the use of process or equipment. However, the Tribunal found that no intellectual property rights were transferred to service recipients, thus Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) did not apply. The Tribunal also noted that changes in the Act did not impact the DTAA definition of &#039;Royalty.&#039; Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the payments for services provided did not qualify as &#039;Royalty&#039; under section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 5 &amp; 6. Since the process was not secret and no exclusive rights were granted, it coul.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:52:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:52:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Rules Interconnect Utility Charges Not &#039;Royalty&#039;; Taxable as Business Profits Without Permanent Establishment in India.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78630</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of characterizing interconnect utility charges (IUC) as &#039;Royalty&#039; for TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act and India-Japan DTAA. The revenue argued that the payments constituted &#039;Royalty&#039; due to the use of process or equipment. However, the Tribunal found that no intellectual property rights were transferred to service recipients, thus Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) did not apply. The Tribunal also noted that changes in the Act did not impact the DTAA definition of &#039;Royalty.&#039; Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the payments for services provided did not qualify as &#039;Royalty&#039; under section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 5 &amp; 6. Since the process was not secret and no exclusive rights were granted, it coul.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:52:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>