Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 485/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3
..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar, Standing Counsel.
versus
SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MENTOR GRAPHICS (IRELAND) LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Mayank Nagi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R %
25.08.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This Appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. The sole issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the sale of software can be construed as royalty, in terms of Article 12 of the India-Ireland Double Tax Avoidance Agreement [in short, “DTAA”] ? 4. The respondent/assessee had shown the income earned from sale of software amounting to Rs.18,16,14,910/- as business income. Since there ITA 485/2023
page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:33:10
was no Permanent Establishment [in short, “PE] in India, respondent/assessee took recourse to Article 7 of the aforementioned DTAA. 5. The Tribunal has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee, relying upon the decision rendered by it in the respondent/assessee’s case, concerning AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15. 6. In our opinion, this is, clearly, a case involving sale of copyright material i.e., software and not transfer of copyright. 7. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, cannot but accept that this issue is covered against the revenue by the judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [2021] 432 ITR 471. 8. Given the aforesaid circumstances, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
AUGUST 25, 2023 / tr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 485/2023
page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:33:10