How many judgments cite CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.?

461 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vi), Section 195, Section 9(1)(vii), Section 40(a)(i), Section 13(4), Section 13(3)(a).

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 195 Section 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 software section 9(1)section 195 fees for technical services permanent establishment section 30 non-resident double taxation section 19 transfer person

Judgments citing CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 405/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…

Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3966/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…fficer that similar facts and issue had arisen in Assessment Year 2013-14. The Ld.AR for the assessee further pointed out that the Assessing Officer/DRP had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. 345 ITR 494 (Kar.) & Synopsis International Old Ltd. 212 Taxman 454 (Kar.). Reliance placed upon the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. [2013] 220 Taxman 273 (Del.) and DIT vs Ericson A.B., New Delhi [2012] 343 ITR 470 (Del.) was distinguished by the Assessing Officer on the ground that SLP was pending before the Hon’ble Supre…

Nagravision Sa, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9130/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.9130/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

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

…329 (Del.) and DIT & Ors. Vs New Skies Satellite BV & Ors. [2016] 382 ITR 0114 (Del.). He also pointed out that reliance placed upon by the authorities below on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in DIT vs Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar.) is misplaced. It was also brought to our knowledge that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) had referred to the said decision and held that where limited right to use copyrighted material has been transferred, the same does not give rise to any ‘Royalty’ income. Coming to the sale of hardware, Ld.AR for the asses…

M/S. Omron Automation (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2210/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Omron Automation (P) Vs. Dcit Ltd., Circle- 19(1) No.43, G.N. Complex (Old Circle 13(1)) St. John Road, New Delhi Bangalore – 560 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaac08103D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM M/s. Omron Automation (P) Vs. DCIT Ltd., Circle- 19(1) No.43, G.N. Complex (Old Circle 13(1)) St. John Road, New Delhi Bangalore – 560 042 PAN/GIR No. AAAC08103D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Agarwal Revenue by Shri Amit Kumar Jain Date of Hearing 21/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 01/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2210/Del/2015 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai…

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. Dy CIT (It) 2 (1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7313/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dassault Systems Solid The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Works Corporation, Vs. Tax– (International Taxation)- C/O Deloitte Haskins & 2(1)(2) Sells Llp , 7Th Floor, Asv Mumbai Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai – 600 017 Pan No. Aafcs8787E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Singh, CIT D.R

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…observed that the same had been assailed by the revenue before the Hon’ble High Court, and thus had not yet attained finality. Also, it was observed by the A.O, that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar), had concluded, that the payments received by the assessee from the resellers in P a g e | 6 India for the acquisition of computer software was in the nature of ‘royalty’, and thus chargeable to tax. Also, the A.O in order to drive home his aforesaid conviction relied on the amendment to ‘Explanation 4’ to Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act, that wa…

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6687/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2020AY 2015-16

Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

…s distinguishable from the rights in the copyright. The Ld. AR also submitted that in this judgment the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had distinguished the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Company Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 494 on which reliance had been placed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. DRP while making the disallowance. 3.10 With respect ground No.7 challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, the Ld. AR fairly accepted that this ground was consequential. 4.0 In response to the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as f…

M/S Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016-2017

ITA 6638/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Shell Information The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology International Bv, Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Vs. 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Apollo Mills Compound, Air India Building, Nariman Point, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 234B

…orted in [2013] 39 Taxmann.com 88, wherein host of other decisions have been referred and relied upon. In the A.Y. 2008-09, the learned CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2013]345 ITR 494 and some other decisions of the Tribunal. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has taken note of this fact and also analysed the payment of software within the ambit of royalty as defined under Article 12 of the India US Treaty. The relevant observation and finding of the Hon’ble High Court is as under: “87. In order to qualify as royalty p…

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 458/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 458/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12 M/S. Acer India Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Embassy Heights, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. No. 13, Magrath Road, Circle – 1(1) (1), Next To Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan No : Aacca1237A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A 473/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Acer India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Embassy Heights, No. 13, Vs. Circle – 1(1) (1), 6Th Floor, Magrath Road, Bangalore. Next To Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore – 560 025. Pan No : Aacca1237A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit - Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2020 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Order Dated 21/01/16 Passed By Ld. Acit Circle – 1(1)(1)

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT - DR

Section 142Section 143Section 40

…horities below have disallowed software expenses under section 40(a) (i) for non- deduction of TDS. Both sides submitted that the issue is against assessee vide decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494, wherein it is held that payments towards purchase of software are in the nature of 'royalty' and liable for TDS. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the view of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Regarding Ground No.3 Ld. AR submitted that it does not arise out of order passed by authorities below. Accordingly based upon the submissions…

Sandvik Machining Solution Ab, (Formerly Known As) Sandvik Tolling Severige Ab), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It), Circle -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1319/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya

Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ble as ‘Royalty’ within the meaning of Article 12(3) to the DTAA between India and USA and hence accepted the assessee’s claim on the basis of the relevant DTAA. 5. Au contraire, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.) has held that import of shrink wrapped software/off-the-shelf software from non-resident company under software licence agreement, whereby a licence is granted to the assessee for taking copy of the software, store the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and to take a back up copy while the ownership of the copyright continues…

Shell Information Technology Inernational Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7283/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Cit (International Taxation) – 4(2)(1) M/S. Shell Information Technology V. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor International Bv Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O B.S.R. & Co. Llp. Mumbai – 400 021 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244A

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 7027/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledassault Systems Solidworks Corporation Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(2) V. Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnaryana Road Chennai – 600 017 Pan: Aafcs8787E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anantha Krishnan N Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Anantha Krishnan NFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(2) v. Mumbai C/o Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP 7th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnaryana Road Chennai – 600 017 PAN: AAFCS8787E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anantha Krishnan N Department by : Shri V. Sreekar Date of Hearing : 26.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the o…

Shree Krishna Goswami, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1097/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1097/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shree Krishna Goswami Vs. Pr. Cit -2, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite213, Kolkata – 700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeopg4309Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…ction 195(2) and makes the remittance without deduction of tax at source, the assessee should be visited with consequences for non deduction of tax at source, which was accepted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Samsung Electronic Co Ltd ( 320 ITR 209), was categorically rejected by Their Lordships, and Their Lordships observed as follows: In our view, section 195(2) is based on the "principle of proportionality". The said sub - section gets attracted only in cases where the payment ma de is a composite payment in which a certain proportion of payment has an element of "income" chargeable to t…

Standard Chartered Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 1859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal, The Matter Was Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) By Observing As Follows:-

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

…on 195(2) of the IncomeTax Act. The appellant made no application to the Assessing Officer under section 195 and on its own decided not to deduct TDS which is clear violation of section 195 of the Income Tax Act as has been held in case of Samsung Electronics 320 ITR 209 by the Karnataka High Court that it is not open to payer to argue that the payment does not result in taxable income in the hands of the non-resident recipient, referring to Supreme Court judgment in case of Transmission Corporation of India 239 ITR 587 that the moment there is a payment to a non-resident, there is an obligation on the payer to d…

Sri B Venkataswamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1451/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri D. S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. L. Rajasekhar Reddy, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 40

…. The assessee took the stand that the payment in question is not in the nature of royalty but the said plea was rejected by the Revenue authorities by following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Ltd., 344 ITR 495 (Kar). Accordingly, the sums claimed as deduction were disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the AO, assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in both the AYs. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard…

Sri T N Reddappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1450/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri D. S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. L. Rajasekhar Reddy, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 40

M/S. Kalki Communication Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1102/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kalki Communication Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 17/1, 4Th Floor, Kaadubeesaanahalli Circle – 1(2), Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabck 2059 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…. The assessee took the stand that the payment in question is not in the nature of royalty but the said plea was rejected by the Revenue authorities by following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Ltd., 344 ITR 495 (Kar). Accordingly, the assessee was held to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act and was also held to be liable to pay interest on the tax not deducted at source under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of th…

Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 487/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…bunals. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Int. Tax. 361 ITR 575 (Mad HC), CIT – Int. Tax. vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 204 Taxman 311 (Karn. HC) and CIT- Int. Tax. vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 345 ITR 494 (Kar. HC). 12. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the facts it can be seen that the assessee purchases international SMS for its international business, which broadly comprises of trading in SMS i.e. it purchases SMS from a foreign customer and sells to another foreign cu…

M/S Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4389/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…he 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 19 I.T.A. No. 140/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. I95(i)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…onics Co Ltd reported in [2010] 320 ITR 209 was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd v CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456. And that, subsequently, vide another decision in CIT v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494, it was held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that software payments are in the nature of 'royalty' and hence liable for TDS. Independently, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v Synopsys International Old Ltd reported in 28 taxmann.com 162 held that software payments constituted 'royalty' and liable for TDS. 19. It is submitted that, before…