<?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 (9) TMI 301 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59235</link>
    <description>Limited, non-exclusive rights to use technical know-how, designs and drawings under a collaboration agreement constitute royalty where the transferor retains ownership and proprietary interests. Restrictions on assignment, confidentiality obligations and liability for disclosure supported the conclusion that no outright sale occurred. The principle applicable to an out-and-out transfer without retained property rights did not apply to this limited-use arrangement. Consideration for the technical documentation therefore fell within the royalty provision of the applicable tax treaty and was taxable in India. The alternative claim for exemption under section 10(6A) was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:34:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 301 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59235</link>
      <description>Limited, non-exclusive rights to use technical know-how, designs and drawings under a collaboration agreement constitute royalty where the transferor retains ownership and proprietary interests. Restrictions on assignment, confidentiality obligations and liability for disclosure supported the conclusion that no outright sale occurred. The principle applicable to an out-and-out transfer without retained property rights did not apply to this limited-use arrangement. Consideration for the technical documentation therefore fell within the royalty provision of the applicable tax treaty and was taxable in India. The alternative claim for exemption under section 10(6A) was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>