AUTODESK ASIA PTE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 August 2021AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for software sales do not constitute royalty. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment with identical facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee received payments for software sales, which the tax authorities sought to tax as royalty under the DTAA and the Income Tax Act. The assessee objected, but the Dispute Resolution Panel rejected their objections.

What were the issues?

Whether the sale of software is liable to be taxed as royalty under the Income Tax Act and the DTAA.

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, BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE

Hearing: 05.08.2021Pronounced: 05.08.2021

O R D E R

Per George George K, JM

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 27.01.2015, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2006-2007.

2.

The solitary issue raised is whether sale of software was liable to be taxed as royalty.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as follow: The draft assessment order was passed on 28.03.2014, wherein it was concluded that payment of US$ 2,06,52,308 received by the assessee-company would constitute royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the DTAA and as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act. The assessee filed objections to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP issued directions dated 19.12.2014. The DRP rejected all the 2 IT(TP)A No.293/Bang/2015. M/s.Autodesk Asia Pte Limited. objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the final assessment was passed on 27.01.2015.

4.

Aggrieved by the final assessment, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P.Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC). The learned Departmental Representative was not able to controvert the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the assessee. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is identical to the facts of this case, we hold that the payment of US$ 2,06,52,308 received by the assessee-company would not constitute royalty and cannot be brought to tax. It is ordered accordingly.

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 →