<?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>2007 (11) TMI 444 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120836</link>
    <description>For section 10A computation, 80 per cent of uplinking charges was treated as attributable to software delivery outside India and was excluded from export turnover; the same charges were also required to be excluded from total turnover to maintain a consistent formula. The loss-set-off issue for one STP unit was not finally resolved because the record did not clearly show whether that unit was a separate undertaking or part of an integrated composite unit, so the matter required factual verification. Deduction under section 10A was allowed on income computed at arm&#039;s length price where the Assessing Officer had not enhanced income under section 92C(4).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2024 16:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 444 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120836</link>
      <description>For section 10A computation, 80 per cent of uplinking charges was treated as attributable to software delivery outside India and was excluded from export turnover; the same charges were also required to be excluded from total turnover to maintain a consistent formula. The loss-set-off issue for one STP unit was not finally resolved because the record did not clearly show whether that unit was a separate undertaking or part of an integrated composite unit, so the matter required factual verification. Deduction under section 10A was allowed on income computed at arm&#039;s length price where the Assessing Officer had not enhanced income under section 92C(4).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>