<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1396 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192378</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, reversing the FAA&#039;s decision, recognizing the income as royalty over six assessment years. The ITAT determined the payment under the TV serial agreement as royalty, not sale consideration, applying Accounting Standard-9 for income recognition. It rectified the double taxation issue, concluding in favor of the assessee due to the nature of the payment and the deferred recognition of income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 May 2017 12:55:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1396 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192378</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, reversing the FAA&#039;s decision, recognizing the income as royalty over six assessment years. The ITAT determined the payment under the TV serial agreement as royalty, not sale consideration, applying Accounting Standard-9 for income recognition. It rectified the double taxation issue, concluding in favor of the assessee due to the nature of the payment and the deferred recognition of income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>