TAXATION) -1 vs. LUCENT INTL.)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/149/2020HC Delhi29 July 20213 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was correct, as the issues were covered by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's decision regarding the taxability of software income and interest under Section 234B. The ITAT had held that income from software, whether embedded or otherwise, was not royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-France DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether income from software supply constitutes royalty, and whether interest under Section 234B is leviable on payments subject to withholding tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi),Section 12,Section 195,Section 234B,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

$~4 to 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 145/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

ALCATEL LUCENT FRANCE (NOW KNOWN AS ALCATEL LUCENT INTL.)

..... Respondent

Through: None.

5 + ITA 149/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

ALCATEL LUCENT ENTERPRISES

..... Respondent

Through: None.

6 + ITA 151/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

2021:DHC:2232-DB ALCATEL LUCENT BELL NV

..... Respondent

Through: None.

Date of Decision: 29th July, 2021

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J 1. The appeals have been heard by way of video conferencing. : (Oral) 2. Present appeals have been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising the following substantial questions of law:- “1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from supply of software embedded in the hardware equipment or otherwise to customers in India does not amount to royalty under Section 9(l)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and France?

2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that payments which are subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not liable for interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

3.

Admittedly, the first proposed question is covered against the Revenue by virtue of the Supreme Court judgement in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC). 4. Even the aforesaid second proposed question is covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgment of this Court in DIT v. GE Packaged 2021:DHC:2232-DB Power Inc. [2015] 373 ITR 65 (Del). 5. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in the present batch of matters. 6. Accordingly, the present batch of matters is dismissed. 7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 29, 2021 AS 2021:DHC:2232-DB

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vi)

All 1,705 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →