<?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>2009 (1) TMI 886 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183882</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to quash the Commissioner&#039;s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a reasonable enquiry into the expenses claimed against royalty income and that the expenses were justified. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the royalty income was not a gift but derived from copyright activities was supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 886 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183882</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to quash the Commissioner&#039;s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a reasonable enquiry into the expenses claimed against royalty income and that the expenses were justified. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the royalty income was not a gift but derived from copyright activities was supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>