<?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 (7) TMI 31 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754811</link>
    <description>Cloud-based software subscription receipts were examined under the India-US DTAA to determine whether the SaaS model and allied support services made available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes under Article 12(4)(b). The services were treated as standard automated functionality, with only implementation and user-training support from personnel, and the customers were not enabled to apply any technical process independently in future. Mere use of software or provision of technical input was found insufficient without transfer of the underlying technology or skill. The arrangement was also considered against royalty characterisation, but no right in copyright or use of copyright was conferred. The receipts were therefore not taxable as fees for included services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 31 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754811</link>
      <description>Cloud-based software subscription receipts were examined under the India-US DTAA to determine whether the SaaS model and allied support services made available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes under Article 12(4)(b). The services were treated as standard automated functionality, with only implementation and user-training support from personnel, and the customers were not enabled to apply any technical process independently in future. Mere use of software or provision of technical input was found insufficient without transfer of the underlying technology or skill. The arrangement was also considered against royalty characterisation, but no right in copyright or use of copyright was conferred. The receipts were therefore not taxable as fees for included services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>