<?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>Foreign media company&#039;s revenue wrongly assessed as royalty; tax reassessment quashed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82077</link>
    <description>Petitioner&#039;s revenue from an Indian payer was not subjected to tax deduction at source, despite being taxable income in India. The assessing officer reopened assessment u/s 147, contending the live feed component was taxable as royalty and rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation of license fee between live feed and recorded content. Following the Delhi High Court&#039;s decision in CIT v. Fox Network Group, the court found no justification for the reassessment action. The assessing officer&#039;s view rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation was rendered perverse in light of the agreement&#039;s stipulations. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order u/s 148A(d).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:20:15 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:20:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Foreign media company&#039;s revenue wrongly assessed as royalty; tax reassessment quashed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82077</link>
      <description>Petitioner&#039;s revenue from an Indian payer was not subjected to tax deduction at source, despite being taxable income in India. The assessing officer reopened assessment u/s 147, contending the live feed component was taxable as royalty and rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation of license fee between live feed and recorded content. Following the Delhi High Court&#039;s decision in CIT v. Fox Network Group, the court found no justification for the reassessment action. The assessing officer&#039;s view rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation was rendered perverse in light of the agreement&#039;s stipulations. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order u/s 148A(d).</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:20:15 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>