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.

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

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

ITA 1156/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…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 119/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sharath Rao, A.R
Section 40

…40(a)(i) of the Act is not called for. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance. 4. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the jurisdictional High Court has held in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (345 ITR 494) that the payment made for software purchase is in the nature of payment of royalty. Accordingly, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee should have deducted tax at source from the payment made for purchase of software. Accordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5. On the contrary, the…

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shamrock Pharmachemi P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

…does not arise. Where no part of 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 CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 209/[2009] 185 Taxman 313 (Kar), has been overruled by the Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18. 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…

M/S Kaseya Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1304/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14

For Appellant: Shree D. S.Vivek, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT DR
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tter be restored to the AO for a fresh decision. Thereafter, he submitted that in para 3.3 of the assessment order, the AO has noted about the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. as reported in 345 ITR 494/245 CTR 481. He pointed out that in the same para, another judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Synopsis International Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 28 Taxman.com 162 was also noted by the AO. He further Page 5 of 12 pointed out that in the same para, a tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s Kalki Communication Tech…

Qliktech International Ab, Banglore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 250(6)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ty. He submitted that assessee in the instant case has merely transferred the right to use the copyrighted article. He submitted that AO and the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Ltd. 345 ITR 494 and CIT vs Lucent Technologies vide ITA No. 168/2004 has held that sale of software is taxable as royalty. The lower authorities have held that the receipt from transfer of copyright through sale and granting of software license by the assessee to its customers in India amounts to use of copyright in the software, therefore, the same is required…

Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation- Circle -2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, P.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…e AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd (order dated 15-10-2011 in ITA No.2988 of 2005 along with the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 494)), wherein it was held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that the payments made to Gartner group towards subscription charges to access data base and research products is in the nature of royalty both under the provisions of Income tax Act and DTAA. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee is an assessee in default in view of the failure to…

M/S Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 114/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

M/S Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 113/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

M/S Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 112/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

Acer India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 111/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

Acer India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 110/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

M/S Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 109/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

M/S Acer India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 108/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 107/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…t and initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. In this regard, the AO has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2011) (345 ITR 494) (Kar), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of license to use a software is “royalty” income in the hands of non-resident. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act from the payments made to the non-residents towards consideration for purchase of license to use software. Ac…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…ted, Bangalore Page 49 of 202 computers. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the payments made for purchase of software. The A.O. noticed that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of Samsung electronics Ltd. 345 ITR 494 that the payment made for purchase of software is in the nature of royalty. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the value of software is liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the assessee did not deduct tax at source from the payments made for purchase of software. The A.O. also held…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…ted, Bangalore Page 49 of 202 computers. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the payments made for purchase of software. The A.O. noticed that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of Samsung electronics Ltd. 345 ITR 494 that the payment made for purchase of software is in the nature of royalty. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the value of software is liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the assessee did not deduct tax at source from the payments made for purchase of software. The A.O. also held…

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I–2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3992/Del/2017 & SA number 250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey Gupta, C.A. Department by: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I–2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3992/Del/2017 & SA number 250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey Gupta, C.A. Department by: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date…

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I–2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3992/Del/2017 & SA number 250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey Gupta, C.A. Department by: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date…

Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92

…mputer software was in the nature of royalty and hence chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient non-resident. The AO placed reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (IT) v. Samsung Electronics India (P.) Ltd. 345 ITR 494 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that payment for purchase of off the shelf software was akin to a payment for right to use software and was in the nature of royalty and the person making payment to a non-resident has to deduct tax at source on such payment. 24. The DRP confirmed the order of AO. In appeal before the Tribunal, the submission made…