SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF

PDF · subscribers
ITA/243/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01031901201501 March 2017Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the substantial questions of law were already covered by its previous judgment in the assessee's own case, and no stay was granted by the Apex Court, no new substantial questions of law arose.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Synopsys International Limited, appealed against an ITAT order confirming the assessment that payments received were royalty. The High Court noted that a similar issue in the assessee's own case was decided in favour of the revenue by the same court.

What were the issues?

Whether the payments received by the appellant constituted royalty under the Income-tax Act and DTAA, and if the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment based on previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi)

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO I.T.A.NO.243/2015

BETWEEN:

SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, PRESENTLY AT: BLOCK 1, BLANCHARDSTOWN CORPORATE PARK BLANCHARDSTOWN, DUBLIN 15 IRELAND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR Mr.CHARLES WATCHORN.

…APPELLANT

(BY Ms.TANMAYEE RAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI J.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF

INCOME –TAX (INTERNATIONAL

TAXATION), RANGE –II,

No.14/3-A, 6TH FLOOR,

R.P.BHAVAN,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 2. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

(INTERNATIONALTAXATION)

No.14/3-A, 6TH FLOOR,

R.P.BHAVAN,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA/INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260 –A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:06/02/2015 PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN I.T(T.P)A.NO.1286/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The appellant-assessee has preferred the present appeal by raising following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances in the case and on the grounds raised, the Tribunal was right in disposing of the Appellant’s appeal by placing reliance on the Judgment of this Hon’ble court dated 15.10.2011 in the case of Samsung Electronics

3 in ITA No.2808/2005 and on its earlier orders dated 31.10.2012 and 05.12.2014 passed by its co-ordinate Benches in the Appellant’s own case in ITA No.550/Bang/2011 and in ITA No.1518/Bang/2010 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, respectively?; and

2.

Whether, on the facts and circumstances in the case and on the grounds raised, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the final assessment order passed by the 1st Respondent in holding that the payments received by the Appellant amounted to `royalty’ as defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under Article 12 of the applicable DTAA, thereby giving rise to an income chargeable to tax in India?”

2.

We have heard Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-revenue.

4 3. When we have taken up the matter for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that in respect of the very assessee similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Synopsis International Old Limited reported at (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 162 (Kar.) and as per the said decision this Court held in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

4.

However she did submit that the matter is carried before the Apex Court by the assessee but no stay order has been granted.

5.

In our view, when the questions are already covered by the above referred decision of this Court, at this stage, no substantial questions of law would arise for consideration more particularly when the Judgment of this court is not stayed by the Apex Court.

5 6. Under the circumstances, present appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SBN

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vi)

All 1,705 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →