<?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>Royalty and FIS/FTS treatment of database recharge and seconded employee reimbursements under India-USA DTAA held non-taxable</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100615</link>
    <description>Recovery of market data charges for third-party database access was held not taxable as royalty under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, because the facts matched earlier years and pendency of further appeals was not a valid reason to ignore binding coordinate bench decisions. Reimbursements of seconded employee-related expenses were also held not taxable as Fees for Included Services or Fees for Technical Services, as earlier coordinate bench rulings and a High Court dismissal had already taken the same view and no factual distinction was shown. Both substantive additions were directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:50:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:50:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Royalty and FIS/FTS treatment of database recharge and seconded employee reimbursements under India-USA DTAA held non-taxable</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100615</link>
      <description>Recovery of market data charges for third-party database access was held not taxable as royalty under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, because the facts matched earlier years and pendency of further appeals was not a valid reason to ignore binding coordinate bench decisions. Reimbursements of seconded employee-related expenses were also held not taxable as Fees for Included Services or Fees for Technical Services, as earlier coordinate bench rulings and a High Court dismissal had already taken the same view and no factual distinction was shown. Both substantive additions were directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:50:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>