<?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>2016 (1) TMI 812 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271020</link>
    <description>Payments made under a value added reseller arrangement for software were treated as purchase consideration for a copyrighted article, not royalty for use of copyright. The agreement allowed only limited marketing, demonstration and customisation rights, while copyright and intellectual property remained with the foreign supplier. On that basis, the payments did not attract tax withholding as royalty, and the related disallowances under sections 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) were deleted. The analysis followed earlier decisions distinguishing resale of software products from acquisition of copyright rights and rejected the contrary Karnataka view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 812 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271020</link>
      <description>Payments made under a value added reseller arrangement for software were treated as purchase consideration for a copyrighted article, not royalty for use of copyright. The agreement allowed only limited marketing, demonstration and customisation rights, while copyright and intellectual property remained with the foreign supplier. On that basis, the payments did not attract tax withholding as royalty, and the related disallowances under sections 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) were deleted. The analysis followed earlier decisions distinguishing resale of software products from acquisition of copyright rights and rejected the contrary Karnataka view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>