<?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>2022 (9) TMI 1536 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311220</link>
    <description>Receipts from supply of software were considered in light of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The controversy was treated as covered by the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which had already resolved the issue against the revenue. In view of that binding precedent, no separate adjudication was undertaken, and the position was accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:28:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1536 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311220</link>
      <description>Receipts from supply of software were considered in light of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The controversy was treated as covered by the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which had already resolved the issue against the revenue. In view of that binding precedent, no separate adjudication was undertaken, and the position was accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>