<?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>2026 (2) TMI 80 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785885</link>
    <description>Payments for satellite transponder service charges to a UK resident were analysed under the Income-tax Act and the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal relied on binding High Court authority that, for treaty purposes, &quot;process&quot; in the royalty article means a secret process, and that a unilateral domestic amendment enlarging the definition of royalty cannot override the treaty absent bilateral amendment. The transponder arrangement was characterised as a service arrangement for uplinking and downlinking television signals, not a grant of rights in a secret process. On that basis, the fees were not royalty under the DTAA and no tax deduction was required under section 195.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:20:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=883407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 80 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785885</link>
      <description>Payments for satellite transponder service charges to a UK resident were analysed under the Income-tax Act and the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal relied on binding High Court authority that, for treaty purposes, &quot;process&quot; in the royalty article means a secret process, and that a unilateral domestic amendment enlarging the definition of royalty cannot override the treaty absent bilateral amendment. The transponder arrangement was characterised as a service arrangement for uplinking and downlinking television signals, not a grant of rights in a secret process. On that basis, the fees were not royalty under the DTAA and no tax deduction was required under section 195.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>