<?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>2018 (4) TMI 449 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358338</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that payments for software licenses were not to be treated as royalty under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA. The retrospective amendment from the Finance Act, 2012, could not create a tax deduction obligation retroactively. Consequently, the assessee was not obligated to withhold tax on software license payments, leading to the cancellation of the demand under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A). The appeal was partially allowed, with certain grounds dismissed as infructuous or not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:26:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 449 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358338</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that payments for software licenses were not to be treated as royalty under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA. The retrospective amendment from the Finance Act, 2012, could not create a tax deduction obligation retroactively. Consequently, the assessee was not obligated to withhold tax on software license payments, leading to the cancellation of the demand under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A). The appeal was partially allowed, with certain grounds dismissed as infructuous or not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>