<?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>2020 (5) TMI 264 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395231</link>
    <description>The Court modified the order for stay of demand, allowing a stay of &amp;amp;8377; 2,31,79,894 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 subject to specific payment terms. The Court clarified that the observations made should not be treated as findings on merits, providing relief to the petitioner regarding the treatment of software licensing fee as revenue expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 13:37:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 264 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395231</link>
      <description>The Court modified the order for stay of demand, allowing a stay of &amp;amp;8377; 2,31,79,894 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 subject to specific payment terms. The Court clarified that the observations made should not be treated as findings on merits, providing relief to the petitioner regarding the treatment of software licensing fee as revenue expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>