<?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>2021 (3) TMI 687 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405359</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that payments made to non-resident software manufacturers were not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act or Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal found that the software transactions did not confer copyright rights and were not subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The decision aligned with a Supreme Court judgment and an earlier Tribunal order, leading to the allowance of the appeals on March 17, 2021.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:32:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 687 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405359</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that payments made to non-resident software manufacturers were not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act or Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal found that the software transactions did not confer copyright rights and were not subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The decision aligned with a Supreme Court judgment and an earlier Tribunal order, leading to the allowance of the appeals on March 17, 2021.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>