M/S NCR CORPORATION INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.461 citing345 ITR 494 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
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?”
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.
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)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026