CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J

348 ITR 196High Court2012#9010 most cited

What is CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J authority for?

Payments for the use of or the right to use copyright constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. · 348 ITR 196 · Section 9(1)(vi) · royalty · copyright · DTAA · India-USA DTAA · Article 12(3) · tax at source · Section 195

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 9(i)section 14(a)section 2(43)section 193section 195(1)section 90(1)section 52copyrighted articlesection 40(a)(ii)section 195(2)section 90(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…he Act. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA [2015] 372 ITR 476 (1.)(Delhi) affirmed. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J 345 ITR 494 (Karn) and CIT v. SUNRAY COMPUTERS P. LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 196 (Karn) and ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in CITRIX SYSTEMS ASIA PACIFIC Pry. LTD., In re (2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR) reversed. The real nature of the transaction must be looked at upon reading the agreement as a whole. 7.6. In view of the above, the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. The real nature of the transaction…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…he Act. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA [2015] 372 ITR 476 (1.)(Delhi) affirmed. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J 345 ITR 494 (Karn) and CIT v. SUNRAY COMPUTERS P. LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 196 (Karn) and ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in CITRIX SYSTEMS ASIA PACIFIC Pry. LTD., In re (2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR) reversed. The real nature of the transaction must be looked at upon reading the agreement as a whole. 7.6. In view of the above, the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. The real nature of the transaction…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…e Act. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA [2015] 372 ITR 476 (1.)(Delhi) affirmed. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J 345 ITR 494 (Karn) and CIT v. SUNRAY COMPUTERS P. LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 196 (Karn) and ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in CITRIX SYSTEMS ASIA PACIFIC Pry. LTD., In re (2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR) reversed. The real nature of the transaction must be looked at upon reading the agreement as a whole. 7.6. In view of the above, the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 8. The ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised…

Nice Systems Technologies Inc., Usa vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(2)International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144C

…omers don't have any authority to reproduce the software in any material form. 7. The AO relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases of CIT v. Synopsis International Ltd., 212 Taxman 454 (Kar), CIT v. Sunray Computer P. Ltd. , 348 ITR 196 (Kar) and CIT v. Page 4 of 10 Samsung Electronics, 345 ITR 494 (Kar) held that the income from sale of software as royalty both in terms of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and DTAA and brought the same to tax. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the action of the AO. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. A…

Ge Intelligent Platforms Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 630/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…Reliance to Lucent was "for the use of or the right to use copyright" and constituted "royalty" under s. 9{l)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA (Synopsis International 212 Taxman 454 (Kar), Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494 (Kar), Lucent Technologies 348 ITR 196 (Kar), Citrix Systems 343 ITR 1 (AAR) & Mlcrosoft/Gracemac Corp 42 SOT 550 (Dei) followed.” 10. In this background of the case in hand, we find that the entire quarrel has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd in a bunch of appeal in Civil Appeal Nos. 8733 – 8734 of 2018 an…

Ge Intelligent Platforms Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5814/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…Reliance to Lucent was "for the use of or the right to use copyright" and constituted "royalty" under s. 9{l)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA (Synopsis International 212 Taxman 454 (Kar), Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494 (Kar), Lucent Technologies 348 ITR 196 (Kar), Citrix Systems 343 ITR 1 (AAR) & Mlcrosoft/Gracemac Corp 42 SOT 550 (Dei) followed.” 10. In this background of the case in hand, we find that the entire quarrel has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd in a bunch of appeal in Civil Appeal Nos. 8733 – 8734 of 2018 an…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ssee was under held to be under obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 from the amount paid to the foreign software suppliers. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT (IT) Vs. Sunray Computers (P) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 196 (Karn) by holding that the payment made for supply of software by L-Technologies, USA was Royalty and liable to be taxed in India u/s.9(1)(vi) read with the DTAA between India and USA. In view of the above precedents, it is clear that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has taken a view that the purchase of off-the-shelf software under software…

DCIT (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lucent Technologies Crl Llc, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the

ITA 678/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM I.T.A. No. 678/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT(IT)-3(1)(2), Room No.113, Lucent Technologies GRL LLC 1st Floor, Scindia House, C/o. Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Ballard Estate, India Bulls Finance Centre, Tower 3, 28th Floor, Senapati Bapat Mumbai-400 0038 Vs. Marg, Elphinston West, Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No. AABCL 3902 G (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Lucent Technologies GRL LLC DCIT(IT)-3(1)(2), Room No.113, 1st Floor, Scindia House, Alcatel Lucent India Limited 14th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green,…

Lucent Technologies Grl Llc, Mumbai vs. Jdit (It) RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7704/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 115Section 115ASection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 44D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM I.T.A. Nos. 7704/Mum/2012 & 8709/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2008-09) Lucent Technologies GRL LLC The Joint Director of Income-tax Alcatel Lucent India Limited (International Taxation), 14th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green, Vs. Range-4, Scindia House, DLF City, Phase-III, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 038 Gurgaon – 122 002 PAN/GIR No. AABCL 3902 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent by : Shri Samuel Darse Date of Hearing : 21.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2…

Lucent Technolgies Grl Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1934/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri PJ PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…chnology International BV (80taxmann.com 64); Shinhan Bank (76 taxmann.com 42); Baan Global BV (71 taxmann. com 213); Alcatel Lucent USA Inc. (ITA.s/1131,7299 & 7300/Mum/ 2010), National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (supra), Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd.(348 ITR 196), Halliburton Export Inc (152 ITD 803), Halliburton Export Inc.(ITA 477 of 2014 of the Hon’ble Delhi High court). 9. We are aware that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that the payment for supply of software is royalty. Thus, we have two diagonally opposite views on the same issue. In such a situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in th…

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 837/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…tax also, purchase of software was a separate item regardless of whether it was purchased standalone or was bought along with hardware. The DR relied on the cases of Elkem Technology (250 ITR 164)Sunray Computers (P.)Ltd. & Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. (348 ITR 196) Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) (P.) Ltd.(74 taxmann.com 92/58 GST 339) ,Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.(343ITR 1), Millennium IT Software (338 ITR 391),IMT Labs (India) (P.) Ltd.(287 ITR 450), Synopsis International(212 Taxman 454),Rishiroop Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.(36 ITD35)and contended that payment made by the assessee for purchase of softwar…

The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Communicatioins Ltd. ( Formerly Known As M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd), Navi Mumbai

ITA 4877/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…tax also, purchase of software was a separate item regardless of whether it was purchased standalone or was bought along with hardware. The DR relied on the cases of Elkem Technology (250 ITR 164)Sunray Computers (P.)Ltd. & Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. (348 ITR 196) Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) (P.) Ltd.(74 taxmann.com 92/58 GST 339) ,Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.(343ITR 1), Millennium IT Software (338 ITR 391),IMT Labs (India) (P.) Ltd.(287 ITR 450), Synopsis International(212 Taxman 454),Rishiroop Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.(36 ITD35)and contended that payment made by the assessee for purchase of softwar…

CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J (348 ITR 196) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax