M/S NCR CORPORATION INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/317/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01041821201217 March 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised were already answered in favour of the Revenue by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the ITAT's order which dismissed their appeal. The core issue involved payments made for software purchase, treated as royalty, and the assessee's status as an assessee-in-default.

What were the issues?

Whether payments for software constitute royalty under the Act, disregarding DTAA, and if the assessee was rightly treated as an assessee-in-default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 260-A

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

ITA NO.317 OF 2012

BETWEEN

M/S. NCR CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED C/O MR.K.HARIHARAN, PARTNER, HARI & VASU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 231, “KRISHNA”, 32-A CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 082. ... APPELLANT

(BY MS.MANJULA K.S. ADV., FOR MS. VANI H. ADV.,)

AND

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), 6TH FLOOR, R.P.BHAVAN, NO.14/3, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 22.05.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.545/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED

THEREIN ii).ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN ITA NO.545/BANG/2011.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

JUDGMENT

The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal by order dated 25.05.2012. 2. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Appellate Authorities were perverse to the effect that the authorities have held that the payments made by the appellant to NCR Ireland towards purchase of software amounts to payment of royalty under the provisions of the Act without having regard to the provisions of DTAA between India and Ireland? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders passed by the respondent under Section 201(1) and Section 201(!A) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 by treating the appellant as an assessee- in-default? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing authority erred in levying surcharge while passing a rectification order without even issuing a show cause notice?”

3.

This Court had an occasion to consider the said substantial questions of law in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung Electronics Private Limited and connected matters reported in 345 ITR 494 (Kar) decided on 15.10.2011 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sinopsis International Old Ltd., (IT Appeal Nos. 11 to 15 of 2008 dated (3.08.2010) and has answered the said substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue.

4.

In fact, the Tribunal in this case has followed the judgment of this Court in Samsung Electronics case. As the Tribunal has held the substantial questions of law in favour of

the Revenue, following the judgment of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this appeal. However, it is submitted that the assessee has preferred Special Leave petition before the Apex Court challenging the said orders. In the event of the assessee succeeding in the appeals, then the Income Tax Officer shall proceed to pass consequential orders under Section 260(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →