<?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>2004 (12) TMI 304 - ITAT BANGALORE-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57806</link>
    <description>Subscription and access fees for a foreign web-based database were treated as neither royalty nor fees for technical services because the user received only limited access, with no transfer of copyright or licence to exploit the material, and no imparting of technical, industrial, commercial or scientific experience under the treaty. The India-USA DTAA, being more beneficial, prevailed over the Act, so the receipt was not taxable in India on that footing. As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195, and the consequential treatment as an assessee in default, together with interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2024 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 304 - ITAT BANGALORE-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57806</link>
      <description>Subscription and access fees for a foreign web-based database were treated as neither royalty nor fees for technical services because the user received only limited access, with no transfer of copyright or licence to exploit the material, and no imparting of technical, industrial, commercial or scientific experience under the treaty. The India-USA DTAA, being more beneficial, prevailed over the Act, so the receipt was not taxable in India on that footing. As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195, and the consequential treatment as an assessee in default, together with interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>