<?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>2014 (4) TMI 690 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246254</link>
    <description>Additional reference questions were unnecessary where the proposed issues on copyright ownership and transfer of rights were already substantially covered by the questions referred, especially the nature of the transaction and transfer of software. The omission of an express statutory citation in the reference did not prevent reliance on the Copyright Act in support of the same contention. The dispute was to be determined by construing the agreement between the applicant and HDFC, including clause (iii). The order was not to be read as deciding that rights had been transferred if they did not vest in the applicant, and the request to enlarge the reference was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:13:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 690 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246254</link>
      <description>Additional reference questions were unnecessary where the proposed issues on copyright ownership and transfer of rights were already substantially covered by the questions referred, especially the nature of the transaction and transfer of software. The omission of an express statutory citation in the reference did not prevent reliance on the Copyright Act in support of the same contention. The dispute was to be determined by construing the agreement between the applicant and HDFC, including clause (iii). The order was not to be read as deciding that rights had been transferred if they did not vest in the applicant, and the request to enlarge the reference was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>