<?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>2013 (9) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236684</link>
    <description>Receipts from sale or licensing of software were treated as royalty in substance, but the additions could not survive in the assessee&#039;s hands because the same income had already been brought to tax in the hands of another entity in the distribution chain. Following its earlier decision on materially identical facts, the ITAT deleted the additions. The separate limitation ground for one assessment year was not pressed and was rejected without adjudication on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 09:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236684</link>
      <description>Receipts from sale or licensing of software were treated as royalty in substance, but the additions could not survive in the assessee&#039;s hands because the same income had already been brought to tax in the hands of another entity in the distribution chain. Following its earlier decision on materially identical facts, the ITAT deleted the additions. The separate limitation ground for one assessment year was not pressed and was rejected without adjudication on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>