THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S.IBM INDIA LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/990/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01041442200830 August 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the purchase of software amounts to a license to use the software for the agreed consideration, and the amount paid towards this consideration constitutes royalty. The Court found that a similar question of fact and law was involved in the present appeal as in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and others. Therefore, the question was answered in favour of the Revenue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, and the order of the ITAT was set aside. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax and Income-Tax Officer) against the order dated May 9, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, in ITA No. 1006/BNG/2007. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-2003. The dispute involves the classification of payments made by M/s. IBM India Ltd. (the assessee) for software. The Revenue is seeking to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the orders of the lower authorities, specifically the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) Ward 19(1), Bangalore.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the payment made by the assessee for the purchase of software constitutes royalty, thereby being taxable in India? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions concerning royalty and income from software). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. The assessee is represented by Smt. Vani. H., Adv. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the purchase of software amounts to a license to use the software for consideration, and such payments should be treated as royalty. The Revenue relies on the High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and others reported in (2011) 245 CTR (KAR) 481.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR I.T.A. NO.990/2008 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Income-Tax Officer (Intl., Taxn.) Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. … APPELLANTS (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Adv.) AND: M/s.IBM India Ltd., Subramanya Arcade, No.12, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore-560 029. … RESPONDENT (By Smt. Vani. H., Adv.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.260-A OF IT ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9.5.2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.1006/BNG/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003, PRAYING TO: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1006/BNG/2007 DATED. 9.5.2008 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER

2 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTL. TAXN.) WARD 19(1), BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SRI K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This court in Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and others reported in (2011) 245 CTR (KAR) 481, has held that purchase of software amounts to licence to use software for the agreed consideration and the amount so paid towards consideration, amounts to royalty. 2. In the present appeal, similar question of fact and law is involved. Therefore, the question is answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PL

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →