<?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 (6) TMI 729 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793348</link>
    <description>Web hosting receipts were treated as payments for access to standard server space, connectivity and infrastructure, not for use or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, because the customer had no possession, operational control or dominion over the servers and only limited inspection rights for security verification. The domestic-law expansion of royalty could not enlarge the India-USA DTAA definition without a corresponding treaty amendment, so the receipts were not taxable as royalty. The arrangement also did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or a process, so it did not constitute fees for technical services under the treaty. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:36:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 729 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793348</link>
      <description>Web hosting receipts were treated as payments for access to standard server space, connectivity and infrastructure, not for use or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, because the customer had no possession, operational control or dominion over the servers and only limited inspection rights for security verification. The domestic-law expansion of royalty could not enlarge the India-USA DTAA definition without a corresponding treaty amendment, so the receipts were not taxable as royalty. The arrangement also did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or a process, so it did not constitute fees for technical services under the treaty. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>