<?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 (9) TMI 15 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411670</link>
    <description>Receipts from sale of shrink-wrapped and off-the-shelf software were examined on the question whether the consideration constituted royalty. The applicable Supreme Court principle was that payments are not royalty where the distributor or end-user obtains only a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to resell or use software, without any transfer of copyright or other protected rights under the Copyright Act. The Tribunal noted that the underlying agreements had not been examined and were not before it, so the factual position could not be matched conclusively with the Supreme Court categories. The royalty characterisation issue was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the governing ruling and the relevant agreements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 15 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411670</link>
      <description>Receipts from sale of shrink-wrapped and off-the-shelf software were examined on the question whether the consideration constituted royalty. The applicable Supreme Court principle was that payments are not royalty where the distributor or end-user obtains only a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to resell or use software, without any transfer of copyright or other protected rights under the Copyright Act. The Tribunal noted that the underlying agreements had not been examined and were not before it, so the factual position could not be matched conclusively with the Supreme Court categories. The royalty characterisation issue was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the governing ruling and the relevant agreements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>