<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1963 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771691</link>
    <description>Receipts from an online learning platform were held outside taxation as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the Income-tax Act and Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA because the platform acted only as an aggregator and facilitator. The content, testing, certification and academic inputs came from participating institutions and companies, and the Revenue failed to show that technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes were transferred so recipients could apply them independently. Customised features or human involvement alone were insufficient without satisfaction of the make available condition. The tribunal&#039;s factual findings were not shown to be perverse, so the tax challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1963 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771691</link>
      <description>Receipts from an online learning platform were held outside taxation as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the Income-tax Act and Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA because the platform acted only as an aggregator and facilitator. The content, testing, certification and academic inputs came from participating institutions and companies, and the Revenue failed to show that technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes were transferred so recipients could apply them independently. Customised features or human involvement alone were insufficient without satisfaction of the make available condition. The tribunal&#039;s factual findings were not shown to be perverse, so the tax challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>