SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/474/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01040522201505 April 2016Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals, noting that the substantial questions of law were already answered by a previous decision of the same court in the appellant's own case. The court found no new substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Synopsys International Limited, filed appeals against the ITAT's order confirming assessment orders. The core issue was whether payments received by the appellant constituted 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act and DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether payments received by the appellant constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act and the applicable DTAA, and if the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment orders 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 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA ITA NO.474/2015 & ITA NO.475/2015 BETWEEN:

SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED BLOCK 1 BLANCHARDSTOWN CORPORATE PARK BLANCHARDSTOWN, DUBLIN 15 IRELAND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. DARRAGH POWER C/O.: SYNOPSYS (INDIA) PVT LTD RMZ INFINITY, TOWER “A” 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR OLD MADRAS ROAD BENNIGANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560016

...APPELLANT (BY MISS.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR FOR SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATES)

2 AND:

1.

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), RANGE - 1

NO 14/3-A 6TH FLOOR

R.P. BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 001

2.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2 (1)

NO 14/3-A, 6TH FLOOR

R.P. BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 001

3.

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)

NO 14/3-A, 6TH FLOOR

R.P. BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 001

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DILIP FOR SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATES)

THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:08/05/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1451 & 1452/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY

3 THE ITAT DATED: 08/05/2015, TO THE EXTENT THE APPELLANT'S APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1451 & 1452/BANG/2013 WERE DISMISSED.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant-assessee has preferred the present appeals by raising the 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 dismissing the Appellant’s appeals by placing reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 15.10.2011 in the case of Samsung Electronics in ITA No.2808/2005 and on its earlier orders dated 31.10.2012, 05.12.2014 and 06.02.2015 passed by its co- ordinate Benches in the Appellant’s own appeals for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively?; and

4 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances in the case and on the grounds raised, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment orders passed 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?”

3.

We have heard Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, for Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Dilip, for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for the respondents.

4.

Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the questions which arise for consideration are already answered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd., reported at [2012] 28 taxmann.com 162 (Kar.). However, she

5 submitted that the matter is carried before the Apex Court.

5.

In view of the above, when the issues are already covered by the above referred decision of this Court, we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration.

Hence, the present appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

JT/-

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 →