TRICENTIS GMBH,AUSTRIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA 2705/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 November 2024AY 2020-21Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)27 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were valid, dismissing the challenge to the faceless assessment procedure. Regarding the software license income, it was held that the assessee was entitled to benefits under the India-Austria DTAA and the income should not be taxed in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a foreign company, challenged assessment orders issued under the faceless assessment scheme. The primary dispute concerned the taxability of income from software license sales, with the revenue treating it as business income and the assessee claiming it as royalty or exempt under a DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment proceedings under the faceless scheme were valid for a foreign company, and whether income from software license sales constituted royalty or business income taxable in India under the DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144B,Section 9(1)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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

Hearing: 08.10.2024Pronounced: 06.11.2024

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144(C)(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

ITA Nos.2705 & 3526/Del/2023

2.

Grounds raised in both the appeals are more or less identical, except variation in figures. Ground No. 1, being a general ground, does not require adjudication. In ground no. 2 of both the appeals the assessee has challenged validi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →