<?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 (7) TMI 868 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345756</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Royalty and License fees paid by the Assessee for using the trademark &#039;Kirloskar&#039; were revenue expenses, not capital. The payments were deemed to benefit the Assessee&#039;s business operations, as they were for the use of the name and not for technical knowhow. The Tribunal found no error in the assessment and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the expenses were in the revenue field under the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 868 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345756</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Royalty and License fees paid by the Assessee for using the trademark &#039;Kirloskar&#039; were revenue expenses, not capital. The payments were deemed to benefit the Assessee&#039;s business operations, as they were for the use of the name and not for technical knowhow. The Tribunal found no error in the assessment and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the expenses were in the revenue field under the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>