DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI vs. ALCATEL LUCENT INTERNATIONAL, FRANCE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6272/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2021AY 2013-1413 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, noting that the issue of software supply being taxable as royalty had been settled in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court in the assessee's own case and similar matters.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition made by the AO. The AO had treated revenue from software supply as royalty taxable in India, following a previous assessment order for a related entity.

What were the issues?

Whether revenue from software supply is taxable in India as royalty under the Income Tax Act and the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi)

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 & SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT
Hearing: 30/06/2021Pronounced: 30/06/2021

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-42, New Delhi dated 20.07.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The grievance of the revenue reads as under :-

“1.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred In deleting the addition made by the AO, and in holding that the revenue received by the assessee from supply of software is not taxable in India as royalty/s 9(l)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as well as Article 13(3) of the India - France.

1.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the addition made by the AO, without considering Explanation 5 and G to section 9(l)(vi), which have been inserted by clarificatory amendments with retrospective effect.

1.3 Thatin the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)erredin deleting the addition made by the AO, after erroneously considering the claimed adequacy of compensation of Alcatel Lucent India while determining the income of the assessee, and in wrongly applying the ratio of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR416 (SC).

1.4 That in the factand in circumstance of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by erroneously stating that he has relied on the assessee’s own case, whereas the first scrutiny assessment of Alcatel Lucent International was for 2013-14.

The appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or alter any ground of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal.”

3. At the very outset, the counsel for the assessee stated that the issues raised by the revenue are now well settled in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bunch of appeals have confirmed the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly conceded to this.

5.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below qua the dispute under appeal. We have also gone through the judicial decisions referred by the counsel

6.

The findings of the AO given in the assessment order dated 24.05.2016 framed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 144 C of the Act is as under :-

“The equipment supplies made by assessee included both hardware and software; however, the attribution of profit can only be applied to hardware supplies and not to the software supplies. In this connection, assessment order of Alcatel-Lucent France for AY 2006- 07 is being fallowed, wherein after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that consideration towards software is taxable as royalty as per the Act and under the corresponding provisions of the India France DTAA. In the present proceedings also, the assessee filed detailed submissions as to why the software component of the telecom equipment supplies should not be treated as royalties both under the IT Act as well as the India-France DTAA. The submissions of the assessee are considered but cannot be accepted for the reasons as in earlier years and as such it is held that software supplied by the assessee is taxable as Royalty as per the Act and also under the corresponding provisions of the tax Treaty.”

7.

From the above it can be seen that the AO has followed the assessment order of Alcatel Lucent France for A.Y.2006-07. It would be pertinent to mention here that Alcatel Lucent France has merged with the assessee w.e.f. 26.12.2013.

8.

A similar quarrel was decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in a bunch of appeals in and others vide order dated 04.04.2014. This order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in ITA Nos.119 to 157/2015 vide order dated 27.02.2015. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi read as under :-

9.

This order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bunch of appeals in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vide order dated 02.03.2021 and in the bunch of appeals the assessee is at Civil appeal No.10674 of 2016, 010673 of 2016 and SLP (C) No.28868 of 2016. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under :-

10.

Considering the facts of the case in the light of the decisions mentioned here in above we do not find any merit in this appeal by the revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

12.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the representatives on 30.06.2021.

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 →