CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

345 ITR 494High Court2012#153 most cited

What is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. authority for?

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

461

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. · section 9(1)(v) · section 9(1)(vi) · section 195 · computer software royalty · non-resident payments · deemed income India · tax deduction at source · foreign software suppliers · royalty income · software licensing

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(i)Section 13(4)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(4)(c)Section 144C(5)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vi)computer softwaresection 9(1)section 195fees for technical servicespermanent establishmentsection 30non-residentdouble taxationsection 19transferperson

Judgments citing CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

M/S Nice Ltd, Israel vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)Inteernational Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.287/Bang/2018 is partly allowed, while ITA

ITA 289/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 195Section 200

…axable in India. The AO treated the same as royalty and charged tax both under the Income-tax Act and DTAA. 3. The same was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics, 345 ITR 494 (Karn), wherein it was held as follows:- “The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 705/ 132 Taxman 373, has laid down that provisions of the DTAA prevails over the provisions of the Act if the provisions of the DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee. It is clear on perusal of the definition of 'royalty' under…

M/S Nice Ltd, Israel vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.287/Bang/2018 is partly allowed, while ITA

ITA 287/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 195Section 200

…axable in India. The AO treated the same as royalty and charged tax both under the Income-tax Act and DTAA. 3. The same was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics, 345 ITR 494 (Karn), wherein it was held as follows:- “The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 705/ 132 Taxman 373, has laid down that provisions of the DTAA prevails over the provisions of the Act if the provisions of the DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee. It is clear on perusal of the definition of 'royalty' under…

Autodesk Asia Pte Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result all appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No.27/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…s placed before us. We note that Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue by observing as under:- "3. One group of appeals arises from a common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 15.10.2011 reported as CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 494, by which the question which was posed before the High Court, was answered stating that the amounts paid by the concerned persons resident in India to non-resident, foreign software suppliers, amounted to royalty and as this was .so, the same constituted taxable income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 […

Auto Desk Asia Pte Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst. DIT

In the result all appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1758/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1758/Bang/2013 It(Tp)A No.294/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)(vi)

…s placed before us. We note that Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue by observing as under:- "3. One group of appeals arises from a common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 15.10.2011 reported as CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 494, by which the question which was posed before the High Court, was answered stating that the amounts paid by the concerned persons resident in India to non-resident, foreign software suppliers, amounted to royalty and as this was .so, the same constituted taxable income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 […

Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

ITA 224/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

…the income is chargeable in India, even clearance under Section 195(2) or 195(3) of the IT Act is not necessary. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 209 (Kar), has been overruled by the Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v CIT, reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). The Supreme Court held as under: “This reasoning flows from the words 'sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act' in Section 195(1). The fact that the Revenue had not obtained any information per se cannot be a gro…

Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

ITA 223/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

…the income is chargeable in India, even clearance under Section 195(2) or 195(3) of the IT Act is not necessary. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 209 (Kar), has been overruled by the Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v CIT, reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). The Supreme Court held as under: “This reasoning flows from the words 'sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act' in Section 195(1). The fact that the Revenue had not obtained any information per se cannot be a gro…

Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 477/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, D.R
Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A Nos.476 & 477/Bang/2018 Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.476 & 477/Bang/2015 AssessmentYears:2008-09 & 2009-10 Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd. C/o M/s. Y.K. Anand & Co. 172/3, Kathriguppe Main Road ITO International Taxation Vivekananda Nagar Vs. Ward-1(1) BSK 3rd Stage Bangalore Bangalore 560 085. PAN NO :AADCC8874E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri P.C. Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Vandana Sagar,…

Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 476/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, D.R
Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A Nos.476 & 477/Bang/2018 Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.476 & 477/Bang/2015 AssessmentYears:2008-09 & 2009-10 Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd. C/o M/s. Y.K. Anand & Co. 172/3, Kathriguppe Main Road ITO International Taxation Vivekananda Nagar Vs. Ward-1(1) BSK 3rd Stage Bangalore Bangalore 560 085. PAN NO :AADCC8874E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri P.C. Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Vandana Sagar,…

Allegis Services (India) Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of

The appeal is allowed

ITA/40/2019HC Karnataka17 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 195Section 260ASection 3Section 40

…yalty’ on which tax was deductible at source under Section 195 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, the assessing officer placed reliance on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd., (reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494 [KAR]). 4. The appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide an order dated 27.9.2017 allowed the appeal and held that since the above decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Samsung Electronics (supra) was passed on 15.10.2011 i.e., after the end of the financial year under c…

DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aramex India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4157/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 9(1)(2) Aramex India Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Rno. 210, 2Nd Floor, 821, Solitaire Cooperate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Park, Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Mumbai. Link Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca6756A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 9(1)(2) Aramex India Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ RNo. 210, 2nd Floor, 821, Solitaire Cooperate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, MK Park, Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Mumbai. Link Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCA6756A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : None 15/12/2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 11/03/2021 आ…

Technicolor India Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the order dated 17

ITA/308/2018HC Karnataka08 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 195Section 260Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I. T. A. NO.308 OF 2018 BETWEEN: TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, [FORMERLY PAPRIKAS INTERACTIVE SERVICES P. LTD] LEVEL 9, NAVIGATOR BUILDING ITPL WHITEFILED ROAD BANGALORE - 560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-FINANCE MS. MILI CHOWDHARY ...APPELLANT (BY SURYANARAYANA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(3) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 5…

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…014, C.A No. 8976/2018, C.A Nos. 8977-8988/2018, C.A No. 3402/2017, C.A No. 2006/2019. 7 3. One group of appeals arises from a common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 15.10.2011 reported as CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 494, by which the question which was posed before the High Court, was answered stating that the amounts paid by the concerned persons resident in India to non- resident, foreign software suppliers, amounted to royalty and as this was so, the same constituted taxable income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 19…

Nortonlifelock Inc (Formerly Known As: Symantec Corporation), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2452/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Norton Lifelock Inc., Vs. Dcit (It), (Earlier Known As Symantec Corporation, Circle-2, Pune C/O. S.R.B.C & Associates Llp, C-401, Panchshil Tech Park, Near Don Bosco School, Yerwada, Pune - 411006 Maharashtra Pan : Aaqcs1868P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Nageswar Rao Revenue By Shri Navin Gupta Date Of Hearing 08-01-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11-01-2021 आदेश / Order

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…lty under the India and USA Double 3 Norton Lifelock Inc. Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter also called ‘the DTAA’). Relying on certain decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.), the AO came to hold that the receipts derived by the assessee from sale of software licenses were taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA. He fortified his conclusion by relying on the direction given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2013-14. The assessee unsuc…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)
Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant PAN AAACH 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 17.12.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2021. O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Abb Global Industries and Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1660/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopalan Guruswamy, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…n of the aforesaid sum for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act and invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The AO placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 345 ITR 494 (Karn) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that when licence is granted to make use of software by making copy of the same and store it in ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page 8 of 16 hard-disk of designated computer and to take backup copy of the software, it will amount to a transfer of right to use software and would constitute royalty within the mea…

Abb Global Industries and Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1488/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopalan Guruswamy, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…n of the aforesaid sum for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act and invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The AO placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 345 ITR 494 (Karn) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that when licence is granted to make use of software by making copy of the same and store it in ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page 8 of 16 hard-disk of designated computer and to take backup copy of the software, it will amount to a transfer of right to use software and would constitute royalty within the mea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 322/Bang/2018 M/s. VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kalayani Magnum, Block – I, 3rd Floor, 2010-11 Income Tax, 165/2, Doraisanipalya, IIM Post, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560 076. (formerly the Deputy PAN : AACCV4573 E Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(5), Bangalore). 323/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2011-12 417/Bang/2018 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. VMware Software…

M/S Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 322/Bang/2018 M/s. VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kalayani Magnum, Block – I, 3rd Floor, 2010-11 Income Tax, 165/2, Doraisanipalya, IIM Post, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560 076. (formerly the Deputy PAN : AACCV4573 E Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(5), Bangalore). 323/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2011-12 417/Bang/2018 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. VMware Software…

Vmware Software India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 322/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 322/Bang/2018 M/s. VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kalayani Magnum, Block – I, 3rd Floor, 2010-11 Income Tax, 165/2, Doraisanipalya, IIM Post, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560 076. (formerly the Deputy PAN : AACCV4573 E Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(5), Bangalore). 323/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2011-12 417/Bang/2018 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. VMware Software…

M/S Infosys Bpm Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanam M. D.R
Section 10ASection 40

…of section 40(a)(i) of the Act for the year under consideration. He submitted that the financial year under consideration is 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court has held in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 that the payment made for obtaining software licenses are in the Infosys BPM Ltd., Bengaluru Page 6 of 16 nature of royalty and hence it is liable for deduction of tax at source. However the above said decision came to be rendered on 15.10.2011. Prior to that, there were certain Tribunal decisions holding that the payment made for purchase of so…