<?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 (11) TMI 169 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238992</link>
    <description>Software expenditure for own use must be characterised on a pragmatic assessment of its purpose, nature and utility, and not by nomenclature alone; where the factual foundation on actual use is incomplete, the matter requires fresh examination. The addition relating to unearned income was deleted on the basis of consistency with earlier years and the absence of any distinguishing facts. Payments to non-resident entities were treated as service charges rather than royalty, so the corresponding TDS disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) was not sustained. The overall result was mixed, with the software-expense issue remanded and the other additions maintained in the assessee&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 169 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238992</link>
      <description>Software expenditure for own use must be characterised on a pragmatic assessment of its purpose, nature and utility, and not by nomenclature alone; where the factual foundation on actual use is incomplete, the matter requires fresh examination. The addition relating to unearned income was deleted on the basis of consistency with earlier years and the absence of any distinguishing facts. Payments to non-resident entities were treated as service charges rather than royalty, so the corresponding TDS disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) was not sustained. The overall result was mixed, with the software-expense issue remanded and the other additions maintained in the assessee&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>