<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1689 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310511</link>
    <description>Consideration for facilitating user rights in off-the-shelf software and related support services was treated as taxable royalty, following the Tribunal&#039;s earlier view on materially similar facts and the absence of any change in the factual matrix. The Tribunal also noted the assessee&#039;s section 158A(1) declaration and left application of any subsequent higher-court ruling to the Assessing Officer. In contrast, the transfer pricing adjustment for software user-right charges and related services was deleted because the Tribunal found no justification to sustain an addition that would merely erode India&#039;s overall tax base, especially where costs were allocated on estimates and later-year comparable proceedings did not result in adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:53:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1689 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310511</link>
      <description>Consideration for facilitating user rights in off-the-shelf software and related support services was treated as taxable royalty, following the Tribunal&#039;s earlier view on materially similar facts and the absence of any change in the factual matrix. The Tribunal also noted the assessee&#039;s section 158A(1) declaration and left application of any subsequent higher-court ruling to the Assessing Officer. In contrast, the transfer pricing adjustment for software user-right charges and related services was deleted because the Tribunal found no justification to sustain an addition that would merely erode India&#039;s overall tax base, especially where costs were allocated on estimates and later-year comparable proceedings did not result in adjustment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>