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 367,154 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.

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 817/AHD/2011[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…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., 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 773/AHD/2011[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 DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

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…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals IT(IT)A No

ITA 1299/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

…e of the amended Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) royalty income will be taxable in India whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. 11.9. The Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics (345 ITR 494) (Kar) had occasion to examine the term "royalty" vis-a-vis "computer software". The Hon’ ble Court observed:- "In view of the abovesaid definition of "royalty", it is clear that the necessary ingredient to be satisfied to find out as to whether the payment would amount to "royalty" is as follows - payment of any kind received as a consideration…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 14A

…ex .Court in Transmission Corporation of A. P. Ltd and particularly in view of interpretation of this judgment by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, [2009] 185 Taxman 313 (Kar.)/ [2010] 320 ITR 209. The AO is of the opinion that the decision of the A P High Court in the case of transmission Corporation of A. P. Ltd. v. CIT, which was approved by the Supreme :,Court in 239 ITR 587 (SC) is applicable and accordingly the assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s.195(1). In this case the AO may have considered that the person making payments to a n…

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…Apex Court in Transmission Corporation of A:P. Ltd and particularly in view of interpretation of this judgement by the Hon'ble KarnatakaHigh Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, [2009J 185 Taxman 313 (Kar.)/ [2010] 320 ITR 209 in the case of M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. land other cases in the context of obligation to make TDS in respect of payments made to Non-Resident Payees for supply of shrink wrapped standardised software. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as under: 66. If one is allowed the liberty of giving a rough and crude comparison to the manner in…

Toyo Enggineering India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 6219/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru –Sr.DR
Section 145Section 254(1)

…the judgment that reads as under: “26. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (2011) 245 CTR (Kar) 481: (2011) 64 DTR (Kar) 178: (2012) 345 ITR 494(Kar) to contend that right to make a copy of the software and storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking backup copy would amount to copyright work under s. 14(1) of the Copyright Act and the payment made for the grant of the licence for the said purpose would constitute royalty. 27. Contradicting the stand of the app…

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor in Interest to Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Now vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

ITA/370/2018HC Delhi03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…s. The licence fee so paid, was held to be „royalty‟ by the tax authorities and affirmed by the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT. In the impugned order, by applying the ratio of the Bangalore Bench decision in Commissioner Income Tax v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. 345 ITR 494, the assessee contends that the jurisdiction having changed, the views of the ITAT is not in consonance with the view of this Court. It relies upon the decision in Director of Income Tax v. Infrasoft Limited 264 CTR 329 (Del). This Court had considered the judgment in Samsung (supra) and distinguished it in Infrasoft (supra); the reasoning wh…

M/S Telecomone Teleservices India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1237/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 194JSection 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 Telecomone Teleservices India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, ‘Srishti’, # 243, 2nd Floor, 1st Block, Circle 7(1)(1), 9th Main, HRBR Layout, Banaswadi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 043. PAN: AACCT 3947J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Cherian K Baby, CA Respondent by : Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2018 O R D E R Per Sunil Ku…

Anz Operations and Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…bility to deduct tax at source, assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’. 8. On the other hand, ld. Addl.CIT(DR) submitted that in light of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd.(345 ITR 494)(Kar) and CIT vs. Synopsis International Ltd. (212 Taxman 454)(Kar) subject remittances are in the nature of royalty. 9. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether remittances made for the ITA Nos.193, 156....611/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 20 purpose of importing of software can be tre…

Jubilant Biosys Limited, Noida vs. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 611/BANG/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…bility to deduct tax at source, assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’. 8. On the other hand, ld. Addl.CIT(DR) submitted that in light of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd.(345 ITR 494)(Kar) and CIT vs. Synopsis International Ltd. (212 Taxman 454)(Kar) subject remittances are in the nature of royalty. 9. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether remittances made for the ITA Nos.193, 156....611/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 20 purpose of importing of software can be tre…

Jubilant Biosys Limited, Noida vs. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…bility to deduct tax at source, assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’. 8. On the other hand, ld. Addl.CIT(DR) submitted that in light of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd.(345 ITR 494)(Kar) and CIT vs. Synopsis International Ltd. (212 Taxman 454)(Kar) subject remittances are in the nature of royalty. 9. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether remittances made for the ITA Nos.193, 156....611/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 20 purpose of importing of software can be tre…

Anz Operations and Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 193/BANG/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…bility to deduct tax at source, assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’. 8. On the other hand, ld. Addl.CIT(DR) submitted that in light of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd.(345 ITR 494)(Kar) and CIT vs. Synopsis International Ltd. (212 Taxman 454)(Kar) subject remittances are in the nature of royalty. 9. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether remittances made for the ITA Nos.193, 156....611/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 20 purpose of importing of software can be tre…

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor in Interest to Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., No vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

ITA/61/2018HC Delhi12 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 206ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e arrangements. The licence fee so paid, was held to be ‘royalty’ by the tax authorities and affirmed by the Bangalore Bench. In the impugned order, by applying the ratio of the Bangalore Bench decision in Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Samsung Electrics 345 ITR 494, the assessee contends that the jurisdiction having changed, the views of the ITAT is not in consonance with the view of this Court. It relies upon the decision in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra Soft Limited, 264 CTR 329. This Court had considered the judgment in Samsung (supra) and distinguished it in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra…

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor in Interest to Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., No vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

ITA/62/2018HC Delhi12 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 206ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e arrangements. The licence fee so paid, was held to be ‘royalty’ by the tax authorities and affirmed by the Bangalore Bench. In the impugned order, by applying the ratio of the Bangalore Bench decision in Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Samsung Electrics 345 ITR 494, the assessee contends that the jurisdiction having changed, the views of the ITAT is not in consonance with the view of this Court. It relies upon the decision in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra Soft Limited, 264 CTR 329. This Court had considered the judgment in Samsung (supra) and distinguished it in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra…

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

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

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

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

…51 of the ICA copyright in a work would be deemed to be infringed when any person, without a licence granted by the Owner of the copyright did anything.He relied on the judgments of Synopsis International Old Ltd.(212 Taxman 454),Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.(345 ITR 494) of Hon'ble Karnataka High and argued that payment made by the assessee for purchase of software was royalty payment,that it was liable to deduct TDS for the said payments,that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had considered the provisions of the ICA and had rightly held that payment made for use of software was copyright,that Hon'ble Court had a…

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

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

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

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

…51 of the ICA copyright in a work would be deemed to be infringed when any person, without a licence granted by the Owner of the copyright did anything.He relied on the judgments of Synopsis International Old Ltd.(212 Taxman 454),Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.(345 ITR 494) of Hon'ble Karnataka High and argued that payment made by the assessee for purchase of software was royalty payment,that it was liable to deduct TDS for the said payments,that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had considered the provisions of the ICA and had rightly held that payment made for use of software was copyright,that Hon'ble Court had a…

Pidilite Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 2(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2174/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 191Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…by the assessee and grant relief accordingly. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Ltd 345 ITR 494 (Kar) observed that on perusal of the invoices filed by the assessee it is noticed that expenses incurred by the assessee are in the nature of fees for technical services and such services are rendered by a person possessing specific skills. Therefore, the nature of expenses are squarely coming within the ambit of section 194J. Therefore, the AO…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 48/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoit(It)A Nos.47 & 48/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Vaidehi G, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…provisions under the India-Singapore DTAA which have not been amended. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in merely following the 8) decisions of the Honourable Karnataka High Court,("KHC") in the case of Samsung Electronics [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar) and CIT v Synopsys International Old Ltd [2011] 212 Taxmann 454 (Kar) without appreciating the facts that the same could be distinguished and therefore, the decision of the KHC does not lay down the ratio decidendi applicable to the facts of the Appellant. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 47/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoit(It)A Nos.47 & 48/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Vaidehi G, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…provisions under the India-Singapore DTAA which have not been amended. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in merely following the 8) decisions of the Honourable Karnataka High Court,("KHC") in the case of Samsung Electronics [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar) and CIT v Synopsys International Old Ltd [2011] 212 Taxmann 454 (Kar) without appreciating the facts that the same could be distinguished and therefore, the decision of the KHC does not lay down the ratio decidendi applicable to the facts of the Appellant. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the…