<?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 (10) TMI 1054 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780258</link>
    <description>Consideration for use of an IT infrastructure facility was examined under the India-Belgium tax treaty to determine whether it constituted royalty taxable in India and triggered withholding tax. The treaty, as modified by the relevant notification, was read as not retaining the clause covering use of, or right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. The text was construed to contain &quot;Plan&quot; rather than &quot;Plant&quot;, with &quot;Plant&quot; treated as a typographical error. On that construction, the payment did not fall within treaty royalty under Article 12(3)(a), so no withholding tax was exigible and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1054 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780258</link>
      <description>Consideration for use of an IT infrastructure facility was examined under the India-Belgium tax treaty to determine whether it constituted royalty taxable in India and triggered withholding tax. The treaty, as modified by the relevant notification, was read as not retaining the clause covering use of, or right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. The text was construed to contain &quot;Plan&quot; rather than &quot;Plant&quot;, with &quot;Plant&quot; treated as a typographical error. On that construction, the payment did not fall within treaty royalty under Article 12(3)(a), so no withholding tax was exigible and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>