<?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 (12) TMI 1107 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254764</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions, treating the trade mark fee and software license fee as revenue expenditures. The judgments were based on legal precedents emphasizing the recurring nature of expenses and their role in business operations rather than asset creation. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2015 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1107 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254764</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions, treating the trade mark fee and software license fee as revenue expenditures. The judgments were based on legal precedents emphasizing the recurring nature of expenses and their role in business operations rather than asset creation. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>