Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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:
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
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?”
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.
However she did submit that the matter is carried before the Apex Court by the assessee but no stay order has been granted.
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