← All Phrases

“royalty income”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)629 judgments

The decision most relied on for royalty income is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on royalty income

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Judgments citing royalty income

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Chennai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-1 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 349/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 155(14)

Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), lacks jurisdiction and is liable to be struck down. 2. Restriction of TDS Credit in respect of Royalty income 2.1 The Ld. AO and DRP has erred in law and on facts by not granting the credit for Taxes Deducted at Source ... erred in law and on facts in restricting the TDS credit to a proportion of the royalty income offered to tax and erred in not granting the full TDS credit available as per Form 26AS of the appellant. 2.3. The Ld. AO and DRP has erred

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 2,09,09,192/- during the year. 4. That the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in made addition of Royalty income from franchisee units situated in Foreign countries (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and Australia) amount in Rs.1,77,48,000/- during the year. 5. That ... evident, the issue that fall for our consideration is (i) Addition of unaccounted sales; (ii) Addition of daily chit payments; (iii) Addition of Royalty income; (iv) Addition of one-time set-up fees as receivable from franchisee units. The only issue in other years is addition on account of contribution

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 2,09,09,192/- during the year. 4. That the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in made addition of Royalty income from franchisee units situated in Foreign countries (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and Australia) amount in Rs.1,77,48,000/- during the year. 5. That ... evident, the issue that fall for our consideration is (i) Addition of unaccounted sales; (ii) Addition of daily chit payments; (iii) Addition of Royalty income; (iv) Addition of one-time set-up fees as receivable from franchisee units. The only issue in other years is addition on account of contribution

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 466/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 2,09,09,192/- during the year. 4. That the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in made addition of Royalty income from franchisee units situated in Foreign countries (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and Australia) amount in Rs.1,77,48,000/- during the year. 5. That ... evident, the issue that fall for our consideration is (i) Addition of unaccounted sales; (ii) Addition of daily chit payments; (iii) Addition of Royalty income; (iv) Addition of one-time set-up fees as receivable from franchisee units. The only issue in other years is addition on account of contribution

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 465/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 2,09,09,192/- during the year. 4. That the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in made addition of Royalty income from franchisee units situated in Foreign countries (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and Australia) amount in Rs.1,77,48,000/- during the year. 5. That ... evident, the issue that fall for our consideration is (i) Addition of unaccounted sales; (ii) Addition of daily chit payments; (iii) Addition of Royalty income; (iv) Addition of one-time set-up fees as receivable from franchisee units. The only issue in other years is addition on account of contribution

Anjappan Rangasmy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

153A provided the same was allowable as per law. After perusal of financial statements, it was noted that the assessee was in receipt of royalty income and interest income from bank. Royalty income was based on turnover of the respective concerns from where royalty was received and therefore, the expenses ... maintain office, travel to franchises, maintain staff and incur salary payments which would be incidental to the running of the office for earning the royalty income. However, the expenditure like interest on non-housing loan, bad-debts, interest paid, amounts written-off could not be allowed as deduction since that

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

153A provided the same was allowable as per law. After perusal of financial statements, it was noted that the assessee was in receipt of royalty income and interest income from bank. Royalty income was based on turnover of the respective concerns from where royalty was received and therefore, the expenses ... maintain office, travel to franchises, maintain staff and incur salary payments which would be incidental to the running of the office for earning the royalty income. However, the expenditure like interest on non-housing loan, bad-debts, interest paid, amounts written-off could not be allowed as deduction since that

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Centrl Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

153A provided the same was allowable as per law. After perusal of financial statements, it was noted that the assessee was in receipt of royalty income and interest income from bank. Royalty income was based on turnover of the respective concerns from where royalty was received and therefore, the expenses ... maintain office, travel to franchises, maintain staff and incur salary payments which would be incidental to the running of the office for earning the royalty income. However, the expenditure like interest on non-housing loan, bad-debts, interest paid, amounts written-off could not be allowed as deduction since that

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 318/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

153A provided the same was allowable as per law. After perusal of financial statements, it was noted that the assessee was in receipt of royalty income and interest income from bank. Royalty income was based on turnover of the respective concerns from where royalty was received and therefore, the expenses ... maintain office, travel to franchises, maintain staff and incur salary payments which would be incidental to the running of the office for earning the royalty income. However, the expenditure like interest on non-housing loan, bad-debts, interest paid, amounts written-off could not be allowed as deduction since that

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. Dcitcentral Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 317/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

153A provided the same was allowable as per law. After perusal of financial statements, it was noted that the assessee was in receipt of royalty income and interest income from bank. Royalty income was based on turnover of the respective concerns from where royalty was received and therefore, the expenses ... maintain office, travel to franchises, maintain staff and incur salary payments which would be incidental to the running of the office for earning the royalty income. However, the expenditure like interest on non-housing loan, bad-debts, interest paid, amounts written-off could not be allowed as deduction since that