<?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>DTH broadcasting licence variable fees and interest provision treated as revenue expense u/s37(1), not s.35ABB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95206</link>
    <description>Variable licence fee paid to the Ministry for a DTH broadcasting licence was held not covered by s. 35ABB, since that provision applies only to capital expenditure for obtaining a licence to operate &quot;telecommunication services,&quot; and DTH activity is broadcasting/distribution and not telecommunication as per TRAI definitions; consequently, the variable licence fee was allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1), and the contrary reliance on telecom-licence precedent was rejected, directing allowance of the deduction. Provision for interest on outstanding/enhanced licence fee was treated as an ascertained contractual liability supported by the agreement, guidelines and demands, and was allowable under mercantile accounting; deletion of the disallowance was upheld. - ITAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>DTH broadcasting licence variable fees and interest provision treated as revenue expense u/s37(1), not s.35ABB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95206</link>
      <description>Variable licence fee paid to the Ministry for a DTH broadcasting licence was held not covered by s. 35ABB, since that provision applies only to capital expenditure for obtaining a licence to operate &quot;telecommunication services,&quot; and DTH activity is broadcasting/distribution and not telecommunication as per TRAI definitions; consequently, the variable licence fee was allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1), and the contrary reliance on telecom-licence precedent was rejected, directing allowance of the deduction. Provision for interest on outstanding/enhanced licence fee was treated as an ascertained contractual liability supported by the agreement, guidelines and demands, and was allowable under mercantile accounting; deletion of the disallowance was upheld. - ITAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>