<?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>2024 (8) TMI 1659 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465411</link>
    <description>Royalty received from non-resident OEMs outside India, with no permanent establishment in India, was held not taxable under section 9(1)(vi)(c) where the manufacturing activity and use of the patents occurred outside India and the Revenue failed to establish taxable accrual or presence in India for the years under appeal. The ITAT Delhi followed coordinate bench rulings in the assessee&#039;s earlier and later years on identical facts, and found the impugned royalty addition unsustainable. Issues relating to reopening, approval, interest, and penalty were either not argued or were merely consequential and did not require separate adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 22:28:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1659 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465411</link>
      <description>Royalty received from non-resident OEMs outside India, with no permanent establishment in India, was held not taxable under section 9(1)(vi)(c) where the manufacturing activity and use of the patents occurred outside India and the Revenue failed to establish taxable accrual or presence in India for the years under appeal. The ITAT Delhi followed coordinate bench rulings in the assessee&#039;s earlier and later years on identical facts, and found the impugned royalty addition unsustainable. Issues relating to reopening, approval, interest, and penalty were either not argued or were merely consequential and did not require separate adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>