<?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>2012 (9) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216246</link>
    <description>Deduction under Sections 80-IA and 80-IB was supported where the Silvassa unit was shown to be a genuine software development unit, with industrial registration, verified sales-tax exemption and business turnover records; short duration of operations and high profit margins alone were insufficient to negate the claim. The same reasoning applied to the assessment year covered by Section 80-IB, and the Revenue&#039;s allegation of profit diversion was not accepted. A settlement payment made to secure commercial rights, including intellectual property and customer restraints, was treated as capital expenditure because it conferred an enduring commercial advantage, so deduction was disallowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216246</link>
      <description>Deduction under Sections 80-IA and 80-IB was supported where the Silvassa unit was shown to be a genuine software development unit, with industrial registration, verified sales-tax exemption and business turnover records; short duration of operations and high profit margins alone were insufficient to negate the claim. The same reasoning applied to the assessment year covered by Section 80-IB, and the Revenue&#039;s allegation of profit diversion was not accepted. A settlement payment made to secure commercial rights, including intellectual property and customer restraints, was treated as capital expenditure because it conferred an enduring commercial advantage, so deduction was disallowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>