<?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 (12) TMI 776 - ITAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219761</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of payments for software as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was deemed &quot;assessee in default&quot; for not deducting tax at source under section 201(1). Relying on judicial precedents, including the Karnataka High Court&#039;s judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 776 - ITAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219761</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of payments for software as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was deemed &quot;assessee in default&quot; for not deducting tax at source under section 201(1). Relying on judicial precedents, including the Karnataka High Court&#039;s judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>