ADIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the issue of whether the payments constituted royalty and were taxable in India had been decided in favour of the recipients by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court, the appeals filed by the AO's were without justification.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officers (AOs) appealed against orders allowing assessees to make payments to non-residents without deducting tax at source for software purchases. The AOs had previously held these payments to be royalty, taxable in India, requiring TDS.
What were the issues?
Whether payments made for software to non-residents constitute royalty and are taxable in India, thus requiring deduction of tax at source.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- DIT v. Ericsson A.B256 citing16 Taxmann.com 371 · 2012 · HC
- Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT213 citing95 ITD 269 · 2005 · ITAT
- Tax v. ZTE Corporation45 citing392 ITR 80 · 2017 · HC
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: खंडपीठ के अनुसार खंडपीठ के अनुसार खंडपीठ के अनुसार Challenging the orders of the CIT(A)-XXXI, Mumbai,of various dates,the Assessing Officers (AO.s)have filed above mentioned appeals.Issue involved in all the appeals is identical. Considering the commonness of the issue,we are adjudicating these appeals together. 1.Assessee-companies are part of Reliance(ADAG) Group.The group consists many an entities including Reliance Communication Ltd.(RCL),Reliance Telecom Ltd.,Reliance BPO Ltd., Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd.RCL is engaged in business of telecommunication. Other three entities were also connected with the business of wireless telecommunication net- work in India.For that purpose,they had entered into various contracts with non-resident-entities and made certain payments for purchase of softwares.The assessees made applications u/s.195 of
19 Appls-RCL(15)+RTL(4) the Act,requesting the AO.s to allow them to make payments to non-residents without deducting tax at source.However,the AO.s held that software payments made by them,to the non residents, were payments towards royalty,that the amounts in questions were taxable in India,that the assessees should deduct tax at source before making such payments.Accordingly,they deducted the taxes before making payments to the non-resident software-suppliers.
2.Aggrieved by the orders of the AO.s passed u/s.195(2)of the Act,the assessee filed appeals before the FAA.s,who allowed the same.In the meanwhile,in the cases of some of the recipients i.e.the non-resident entities,the matters travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the matters in their favour and against the AO.s.In the cases of Ericson AB Sweden and ZTE Corporation,the department challenged the orders of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Courts contesting that payments received by the non-residents were taxable in India.But,the Hon’ble Courts dismissed the appeals.
3.Before us,the Departmental Representative(DR)and the Authorised Representative(AR)agreed that considering the fact that in the case of recipients issue has been decided against the AO.s,there was no justification to argue the above mentioned matters.However,the DR stated that the matters have not attained finality,as the Department has approached the higher judicial forums in all the cases.
4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that in the hands of the above recipients,the Tribunal has held that payments received by them was not royalty and hence were not taxable.If the payments made by the assessees were not taxable,there would not be any liability to deduct tax at source.So,the appeal filed will be have to be rejected. We are summarising the factual position of the above appeals in a tabular form:
SN. of the assessee Name of the Recipient HC/Tribunal judgment/ orders deciding the issue in favour of the recipient 1 5093/Mum/2008 Reliance Telecom Ericsson AB Sweden (16 taxmann.com 371) Limited (Del.-HC) 2 5094/Mum/2008 Reliance Telecom Ericsson AB Sweden Limited 3 5095/Mum/2008 Reliance Telecom Ericsson AB Sweden Limited 4 5096/Mum/2008 Reliance Telecom Ericsson AB Sweden Limited 5 5080/Mum/208 Reliance Communications Ericsson AB Sweden (16taxmann.com371) (Del.- Limited 6 4901/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Ericsson AB Sweden
19 Appls-RCL(15)+RTL(4)
HC) Limited 7 4672/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Ericsson AB Sweden Limited 8 5084/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications ZTE Corporation China 392 ITR 80 (Delhi) (HC) Limited 70 taxmann.com 1 9 4899/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Alcatel USA International and 7300/ Limited Marketing Inc USA Mum/2010,order dated 25. 10 4927/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Alcatel USA International 05.2017 and Limited Marketing Inc USA (43 SOT 31-(Mum- Trib.) 11 4255/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications Alcatel USA International Limited (URO) Marketing Inc USA 12 4309/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications Alcatel USA International Limited Marketing Inc USA 13 5469/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications Alcatel USA International Limited Marketing Inc USA 14 4675/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Motorola Inc USA Limited 15 4878/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Motorola Inc USA (95 ITD 269) (Del.) (SB) Limited 16 4908/Mum/2007 Reliance Communications Motorola Inc USA Limited 17 5078/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications Team Telecom (40SOT28-Mum-Trib) Limited International Ltd., Israel (URO) 18 5079/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications Team Telecom Limited International Ltd., Israel 19 5477/Mum/2008 Reliance Communications Nortel Networks India ITA No.3313 to 3315/ Limited International Inc. USA Del/2012,1087/Del/2014, Order dated 26.09.2017 In the matters of Ericsson and ZTE Corporation,China orders of the Tribunal have been confirmed by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,as stated earlier.
Considering the fact that all the appeals,filed by the above referred recipients,have been allowed by the Tribunal and that the orders of the Tribunal in the two non-resident-entities have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,we dismiss the above appeals,filed by the AO.s.
As a result,all the appeals(19)filed by the AO.s stand dismissed. फलतः िनधा�रती अिधका�रय� �ारा दािखल क� ग� सारी अपील�(19)नामंजूर क� जाती ह�. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th January, 2018. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� दनांक 15 जनवरी , 2018 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- रिवश सूद /Ravish Sood) (राजे�� / RAJENDRA) (रिवश सूद रिवश सूद रिवश सूद �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक/Dated :15 .01.2018. Jv.Sr.PS. आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ� 2. Respondent /��यथ� 3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब� अपीलीय आयकर आयु�, 4.The concerned CIT /संब� आयकर आयु� 3
19 Appls-RCL(15)+RTL(4)
More judgments on Section 195
- Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs Ward 1, TuticorinITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Gmp Technical Solutions Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 6155/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S. Sarjak Container Lines Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1791/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs DCIT, International Taxation Circle…ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Buttercup Publishing Private Limited, Delhi vs ITO Int Tax. 1(1)(2), DelhiITITA 19/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026