<?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>2010 (3) TMI 845 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208875</link>
    <description>Royalty paid for technical assistance was held to be an allowable business expense where the assessee produced sufficient material to show that the agreements were necessary for its business and that the payment yielded business benefit. The Tribunal followed its coordinate Bench decision in the assessee&#039;s own earlier years, noting that the facts were identical. Revenue&#039;s allegation that the payment was a colourable device or a diversion of profits failed for want of concrete evidence, and mere suspicion or comparison with profits could not justify disallowance. The disallowance under section 37(1) was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 845 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208875</link>
      <description>Royalty paid for technical assistance was held to be an allowable business expense where the assessee produced sufficient material to show that the agreements were necessary for its business and that the payment yielded business benefit. The Tribunal followed its coordinate Bench decision in the assessee&#039;s own earlier years, noting that the facts were identical. Revenue&#039;s allegation that the payment was a colourable device or a diversion of profits failed for want of concrete evidence, and mere suspicion or comparison with profits could not justify disallowance. The disallowance under section 37(1) was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>