<?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 (9) TMI 1924 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468271</link>
    <description>Interconnect service charges paid to a non-resident telecom operator were held not to constitute royalty and therefore were not chargeable to tax as royalty. The Karnataka HC followed its earlier co-ordinate Bench view in connected appeals, which had already determined that such charges fall outside the royalty definition. On that basis, the challenged order was found consistent with the prior decision, the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:49:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1924 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468271</link>
      <description>Interconnect service charges paid to a non-resident telecom operator were held not to constitute royalty and therefore were not chargeable to tax as royalty. The Karnataka HC followed its earlier co-ordinate Bench view in connected appeals, which had already determined that such charges fall outside the royalty definition. On that basis, the challenged order was found consistent with the prior decision, the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>