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 367,164 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.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Independent Technology Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed and the CO by the assessee is also partly allowed

ITA 1086/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sreenandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1086/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. CSG Systems International Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1)(1), [formerly known as M/s. Bangalore. Independent Technology Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.], Divyashree Tower, 4th Floor, No.55, Guruppanna Palya, Madivala Range, Bangalore – 560 029. PAN: AABCI 2954B APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO No.159/Bang/2015 [in IT(TP)A No.1086/Bang/2013] Assessment year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner o…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Ongc As Representative Assessee of M/S. Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 1965/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…(A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the material referred to before us. The sole issue involved is, whether the amount received by the assessee from ONGC for ‘annual membership-cum-licence fee’ over the tenure of agreement for five years for the acquisitio…

M/S. Ongc As Representative Assessee of Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. ADIT, Dehradun

ITA 1892/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…(A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the material referred to before us. The sole issue involved is, whether the amount received by the assessee from ONGC for ‘annual membership-cum-licence fee’ over the tenure of agreement for five years for the acquisitio…

M/S. Ongc As Representative A/O Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

ITA 6170/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…(A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the material referred to before us. The sole issue involved is, whether the amount received by the assessee from ONGC for ‘annual membership-cum-licence fee’ over the tenure of agreement for five years for the acquisitio…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. ADIT, Dehradun

ITA 440/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…(A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the material referred to before us. The sole issue involved is, whether the amount received by the assessee from ONGC for ‘annual membership-cum-licence fee’ over the tenure of agreement for five years for the acquisitio…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. DDIT, Dehradun

ITA 3908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…(A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the material referred to before us. The sole issue involved is, whether the amount received by the assessee from ONGC for ‘annual membership-cum-licence fee’ over the tenure of agreement for five years for the acquisitio…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Kavithtalaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1287/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1287/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kavithalaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Media Circle 1, Vs. No. 34, Warren Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai – 4. [Pan: Aaack2996E] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vi, Chennai Dated 28.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised Two Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act” In Short] On The Sum Of ₹.3 Crores On The Ground That The Said Sum Was Directly Paid By M/S. Pyramid Saimira Entertainment Ltd. To M/S. Seven Arts Film & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That ₹.75 Lakhs Repaid To M/S. Pyramid Saimira

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 29Section 30Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1287/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Kavithalaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Media Circle 1, Vs. No. 34, Warren Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai – 4. [PAN: AAACK2996E] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by…

Saraswat Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT WD 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1590/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodsaraswat Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Ranjan Kumar Singh, (Formerly Known As Saraswat Deputy Commissioner Of Income Infotech Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Tax, Ward-15(3)(2), Madhushree, Plot No. 85, Vs. Mumbai. District Business Center, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Pan – Aajcs4303A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…ve parties. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar) has held that the amount paid for the supply of off-the-shelf software was to be construed as “royalty” in terms of the provisions of the Act, and the applicable tax treaty. The ld. D.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement submitted, that as it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to have deducted tax at source, whic…

ITO, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Filco Trade Centre, Gurgaon

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6486/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 1Section 195Section 40

…and was chargeable to tax and that the assessee was liable u/s 201 for failure to deduct tax at source though this was reversed by the Tribunal. On appeal by the department, the High Court reversed the Tribunal by taking the view in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics320 ITR 209 that the assessee was not entitled to consider whether the payment was chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident or not and had to deduct tax u/s 195 on all payments. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the High Court: (i) S. 195(1) uses the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act". This means that a person payin…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2088/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…rther stated that the disallowance made by the AO relying on the decisions in the case of Transmission Corporation of India of AP Limited (Supreme Court 239 ITR 587) and on the decision in the case of CIT 'Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (Karnataka High Court 320 ITR 209) was due to erroneous appreciation of the ratio of the said decisions of the respective Hon'ble Courts. The A.Rs of the assessee have submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in 320 ITR 209 (supra) was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and Another, (327 ITR 456). In…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2087/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…rther stated that the disallowance made by the AO relying on the decisions in the case of Transmission Corporation of India of AP Limited (Supreme Court 239 ITR 587) and on the decision in the case of CIT 'Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (Karnataka High Court 320 ITR 209) was due to erroneous appreciation of the ratio of the said decisions of the respective Hon'ble Courts. The A.Rs of the assessee have submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in 320 ITR 209 (supra) was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and Another, (327 ITR 456). In…

Evolv Clothing Company Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above and for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 1573/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1572 & 1573/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Vs The Acit, Ltd., Corporate Circle 2(1), (Formerly Known As Isex Fashions P Chennai – 34. Ltd), 471, Mkn Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. Pan: Aaaci0900L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Paruna Sundri, CITFor Respondent: 28.06.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…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 gr…

Evolv Clothing Company Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above and for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 1572/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1572 & 1573/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Vs The Acit, Ltd., Corporate Circle 2(1), (Formerly Known As Isex Fashions P Chennai – 34. Ltd), 471, Mkn Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. Pan: Aaaci0900L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Paruna Sundri, CITFor Respondent: 28.06.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…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 gr…

Systems America (India) Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 905/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…[2011] 332 ITR 222 (Del) 36. In his rival submission, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) reported at 345 ITR 494 (Karn). 37. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee downloaded a software named SAI B2B Server from the website of System America Inc. USA and made a payment of Rs. 26,49,045/-. The said software was direc…

ACIT, Circle-7(1) vs. System America India Ltd

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

ITA 1492/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…[2011] 332 ITR 222 (Del) 36. In his rival submission, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) reported at 345 ITR 494 (Karn). 37. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee downloaded a software named SAI B2B Server from the website of System America Inc. USA and made a payment of Rs. 26,49,045/-. The said software was direc…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 984/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 959 & 984/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ciena India Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 14, Sec-32 Echelon Vs. TDS Ward 1(1), Institutional Area, International tax, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana 122001. PAN No: AACCC6131B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) & Mr. Himanshu Sinha (Adv.) Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 29.05.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 29/06/2018. ORDER PER : O.P.KAN…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 959/DEL/2011[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 959 & 984/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ciena India Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 14, Sec-32 Echelon Vs. TDS Ward 1(1), Institutional Area, International tax, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana 122001. PAN No: AACCC6131B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) & Mr. Himanshu Sinha (Adv.) Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 29.05.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 29/06/2018. ORDER PER : O.P.KAN…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 2058/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2058/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Shell Information Technology Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of International Bv, Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 1St Floor, Lodha Excelus, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Road, Mumbai - 400038 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400011 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics9091A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Madhuragrawal (Ar) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Samuel Darse (Cit Dr) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2018

For Appellant: Shri MadhurAgrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…orted in [20131 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: 7 Assessment Year: 2011-12 “87. In…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…did not accept the contentions of the assessee and confirmed addition. 79. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…did not accept the contentions of the assessee and confirmed addition. 79. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal…