<?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>1999 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61044</link>
    <description>The case involved the taxability of royalty received from CMERI and whether it constituted capital or revenue receipt. The Third Member concluded that the amounts were capital receipts, not taxable, based on the irrevocable assignment of patent rights to CMERI. The decision aligned with the CIT(A) and Accountant Member&#039;s views, emphasizing the nature of the receipts as capital and applying the Supreme Court judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty. As a result, the amounts received by the assessee were deemed not taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61044</link>
      <description>The case involved the taxability of royalty received from CMERI and whether it constituted capital or revenue receipt. The Third Member concluded that the amounts were capital receipts, not taxable, based on the irrevocable assignment of patent rights to CMERI. The decision aligned with the CIT(A) and Accountant Member&#039;s views, emphasizing the nature of the receipts as capital and applying the Supreme Court judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty. As a result, the amounts received by the assessee were deemed not taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>