<?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 (11) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780694</link>
    <description>Cost-to-cost reimbursement for routine IT and support services was not taxable as fee for included services under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA because the services did not satisfy the make available test. The Tribunal found that application, infrastructure, security and training support were provided under an inter-company arrangement, but the record did not show transmission of technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes enabling the Indian affiliates to independently perform the services after the arrangement ended. It also noted the absence of any profit element and that the Revenue did not rebut the assessee&#039;s allocation methodology or contractual recharge basis. The addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780694</link>
      <description>Cost-to-cost reimbursement for routine IT and support services was not taxable as fee for included services under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA because the services did not satisfy the make available test. The Tribunal found that application, infrastructure, security and training support were provided under an inter-company arrangement, but the record did not show transmission of technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes enabling the Indian affiliates to independently perform the services after the arrangement ended. It also noted the absence of any profit element and that the Revenue did not rebut the assessee&#039;s allocation methodology or contractual recharge basis. The addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>