https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446945 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's claim for royalty deduction under section 37(1). The assessee, a franchisee bottler for Aquafina brand, paid royalty to PepsiCo entity. Revenue disallowed the payment citing non-compliance with section 133(6) notice and non-production of the franchisor for verification. ITAT held that mere non-compliance cannot establish non-existence of a well-known global company or prove transaction genuineness. No evidence showed trademark infringement or that assessee operated without proper licensing agreement. Royalty payment was allowed as legitimate business expenditure. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Dec 2023 10:53:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446945 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's claim for royalty deduction under section 37(1). The assessee, a franchisee bottler for Aquafina brand, paid royalty to PepsiCo entity. Revenue disallowed the payment citing non-compliance with section 133(6) notice and non-production of the franchisor for verification. ITAT held that mere non-compliance cannot establish non-existence of a well-known global company or prove transaction genuineness. No evidence showed trademark infringement or that assessee operated without proper licensing agreement. Royalty payment was allowed as legitimate business expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446945