BEA SYSTEMS IND., (SINCE MERGED WITH ORCALE SYSTEMS CORPORATION),BANGALORE vs. ADDL. DIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1683/BANG/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 February 2022AY 2009-106 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a software company, sold software products through its subsidiary BEA Systems India. The Assessing Officer treated payments received by the assessee as royalty under the DTAA, a view upheld by the DRP based on previous years' decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether payments received for software products constitute royalty under the DTAA, considering the nature of the transaction and the right to use the copyright.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 16/02/2022Pronounced: 16/02/2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26.10.2012 framed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 144 C(13) of the Act. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a software company engaged in the business of research, creation of software products and selling its products through its subsidiaries across the globe. The products were in the category of middleware products used to provide the infrastructure base for applications to elicit information from various database.

4.

In terms of the agreement, BEA systems India, ordered and distributed the software products strictly against an end user order in whose name the licenses were issued by appellant. Hence, the recipient of right to use is the end customer and not BEA Systems India. It may be pertinent to note that the software procured is merely a product in the hands of BEA Systems India as it has no right to use the product being a distributor.

5.

BEA India was the one making payments to BEA Systems and not the end user.

6.

The AO was of the firm belief that the payment received by the assessee is for right in a copy right and accordingly treated the same as royalty under Article 12 of DTAA.

7.

Objections were raised before the DRP. The DRP after considering the objections came to the conclusion that the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 held that the payments constitute royalty and confirmed the view of the AO. The DRP further observed that for the year under consideration there was no change in the issues involved and followed the decision of the DRP in A.Y.2007-08 and confirmed the view of the AO. In A.Y.2008-09 the quarrel travelled upto the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon’ble High Court in C/W ITA No.269/2012 decided the quarrel in favour of the revenue. The relevant findings of the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) read as under :-

8.

The quarrel relating to the impugned issue as now been well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited 432 ITR 471 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under :-

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →