<?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 (3) TMI 123 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787368</link>
    <description>The note examines taxation of software licence and maintenance receipts under the India-Canada DTAA, focusing on whether the amounts constituted royalty or fees for included services and whether the non-resident had a permanent establishment in India. It states that, on identical facts in earlier years, the same receipts had already been held not taxable, and that no material change was shown. It further records that the revenue did not prove a PE in India, the equipment-royalty premise was rejected as unsustainable, and in the absence of a PE the business income could not be taxed under section 44BB. The discussion concludes that treaty protection prevailed and the characterization issues became academic.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 08:42:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 123 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787368</link>
      <description>The note examines taxation of software licence and maintenance receipts under the India-Canada DTAA, focusing on whether the amounts constituted royalty or fees for included services and whether the non-resident had a permanent establishment in India. It states that, on identical facts in earlier years, the same receipts had already been held not taxable, and that no material change was shown. It further records that the revenue did not prove a PE in India, the equipment-royalty premise was rejected as unsustainable, and in the absence of a PE the business income could not be taxed under section 44BB. The discussion concludes that treaty protection prevailed and the characterization issues became academic.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>