<?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 (6) TMI 889 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329180</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, determining that payments for software purchases were not taxable as royalty. The Tribunal emphasized that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was justified, as there was no obligation to withhold tax under section 195. Consequently, the appeals in ITA Nos. 822, 823, and 824/Mds/2016 were allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 889 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329180</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, determining that payments for software purchases were not taxable as royalty. The Tribunal emphasized that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was justified, as there was no obligation to withhold tax under section 195. Consequently, the appeals in ITA Nos. 822, 823, and 824/Mds/2016 were allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>