THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders based on the judgment in related civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court. The specific outcome of the ITAT's decision on TDS deductibility was not directly affirmed or overturned by this High Court order.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the deductibility of TDS on software purchase payments. The ITAT had held that such payments were not royalty and therefore not subject to TDS.
What were the issues?
The key issues were whether payments for software purchase constituted royalty under the Act and tax treaties, and whether the assessee was obligated to deduct TDS in such cases.
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.
- Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT243 citing239 ITR 587 · 1999 · SC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
I.T.A. NO.1058 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
RASTROTHANA BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
WARD-19(2), RASTROTHANA BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED NO.193, 1ST FLOOR, R.V. ROAD BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. ... RESPONDENT
(By Smt. VANI H, ADV.) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1604-1644/BANG/2004 DATED 31.1.2006 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, BANGALORE & ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt.Vani H., learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue which is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS in respect of payments made for purchase of software as the same cannot be treated as income liable to tax in India as Royalty or Scientific Work under section 9 of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and treaties.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that since the assessee had purchased only a right to use the copyright i.e., the software and not the entire copyright itself, the payment cannot be treated as Royalty as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Treaties which is beneficial to the assessee and consequently section 9 of the Act should not take into consideration. 3. Whether the Tribunal should have recorded a finding that it is under section 195(2) and (3) and (4) of the Act, the chargeability to tax or not of the recipient is decided and having failed to obtain such a decision the assessee was bound to deduct tax at source as held by the Apex Court in 239 ITR 587. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment partakes the character of purchase and sale of goods and therefore cannot be treated as royalty payment liable to Income Tax.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA No.2987/2005 in favour of the revenue. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order is subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.8942-47/2018.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this appeal is disposed of with a direction that the Assessing Officer shall pass consequential order under Section 260(1A) of the Act in terms of the judgment which may be delivered in the aforesaid civil appeals. With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
More judgments on Section 9
- Kohler Co., United States of America vs DCIT, International Taxation, Circle1(2)…ITA 185/BANG/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021
- ACIT, Delhi vs Gamma Pizzakraft Lanka (Private) Limited…ITITA 27/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Gamma Pizzakraft Lanka (Private) Limited…ITITA 26/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)… vs Mercedes-Benz Group Ag, MumbaiITA 2879/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)… vs Mercedes-Benz Group Ag, MumbaiITA 2878/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026