Apqjieliaiitthrough:mr. Ruchirbhatia,Sr. Stitodingadvopate v. Plough; R None

;$^50 &31 ':-m >11^ 884/201f &TimTIQN-2 iV>s?pcnmselfbr^' rJtdVoeate Versiis ,..:';'cV.--'r':''- :;Thr6ugh: ....AppellantGautavKhetarpal, Respondent NITAI^TO CORAM: ••V .....ApqjieliaiitThrough:Mr. RuchirBhatia,Sr. StitodingAdvopate versus Respondent Plough; r None. ORDER23.10.2017 % i. VTheie twb :^eals;^eommonquestionsof1^, though fors^atatey^s i.e. A.Y. 2010-1:1 andThe first questionis withrespect to the taxability of sale of software and subscription,and theamountsreceivedthereforby the assessee/respondent.The Revenueurgedthat this income was n SB ITA NOS.884/2017&885/2017 Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA \ Pager : I W#ig ttiat* amtiuia ttiat* amtiuia amtiuia W#ig ttiat* amtiuia ttiat* amtiuia amtiuia. reeeived'Wasnotroyaty. We noticethat the issue is covetelagainstheRevalueby the deci^ondfthis Ccmrtin The ConMssioner'.fMm TaxV.„„,,,,. 2.The secondquestionurged again for both years is with respe^tointerestchargeableuiiderSection234B. Here again, the ITAT ruled infavourof die assessee. The ITAT set asidethe decisionofthe DRPted, noticra that.the,issue is covered against the Revenue, in tiie judpient^ ^ G£.ft,cfe^PmerCmimmimho. '':;, , 'of law are covered'agaiiist;the revenue, the,areaccordinglydismissed. s. ravindra bSat, J WTQBER23,20Kkks tA||py fee:.V,-r JV-;.;.; Xir.