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 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

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

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

M/S. Datalog Technologies Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Inernational Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 936/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…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 :-15-: ITA. Nos: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 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 obt…

M/S. Datalog Technologies Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 935/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…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 :-15-: ITA. Nos: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 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 obt…

Gartner Ireland Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allo

ITA 2460/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

…gh Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) followed its own ruling in the Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) followed its own ruling in the Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) followed its own ruling in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). The Ld. Counsel submi The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the tted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis and Centre of Excellence (supra) has case of Engineering Analysis and…

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 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 ta…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2 2, Bmtc Building Koramangala vs. The Oasis Centre Llc, Dubai Uae

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

ITA 959/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.959/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. M/S. The Oasis Centre Llc, Circle – 2(2), Land Mark Group West Wing Building Bengaluru. No.3, Off Hal Airport Main Road, Yamlur – 560 037, Bangalore. Pan : Aafct 2481 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…on 9(1)(vi) of the Act and hence the payment towards use of software shall be treated as “royalty”. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Samsung Electronic Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 209 (Karnataka). The AO had also relied on the following judicial pronouncements: IT(IT)A No.959/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 8 1. Citrix Systems Asis Pacific Pry Ltd lnre vs (2012) 18 taxmann.com 172 (AAR-New Delhi) 2. C1T vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd., (2012) 28 taxmann.com 162. the HC of Karnataka. 3. CIT vs CGI Information Systems and Management c…

DCIT-International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

…IT(IT)A Nos.1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 respectively Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. B9A & 9B7th Floor DCIT Pritech Park SEZ S.No.51-64/4 International Taxation Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Circle-1(2) Vs. Bellandur Village Bangalore Bengaluru 560 103 Karnataka PAN NO : AACCN1140K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. Resp…

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1025/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

…IT(IT)A Nos.1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 respectively Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. B9A & 9B7th Floor DCIT Pritech Park SEZ S.No.51-64/4 International Taxation Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Circle-1(2) Vs. Bellandur Village Bangalore Bengaluru 560 103 Karnataka PAN NO : AACCN1140K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. Resp…

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1024/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.1023 To 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

…IT(IT)A Nos. 1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 respectively APPELLANT DCIT International Taxation Circle-1(2) Bangalore RESPONDENT Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. B9A & 9B7th Floor Pritech Park SEZ S.No.51-64/4 Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Vs. Bellandur Village Bengaluru 560 103 Karnataka PAN NO : AACCN1140K Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. Respondent…

Synamedia Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R

…IT(IT)A No.940/Bang/2023 Synamedia Limited, United Kingdom IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.940/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Synamedia Limited One London Road Staines Upon Thames ACIT London International Taxation Vs. Middlesex, TW 18 4 EX Circle-1(2) United Kingdom Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN2524L APPELLANT RESPONDENT S.P. No.41/Bang/2023 (Arising out of IT(IT)A No.940/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Synamedia Limited ACIT United Kingdom International Taxation Vs. Circle-1(…

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…not liable to' deduct any tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA [2015] 372 ITR 476 (1.)(Delhi) affirmed. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J 345 ITR 494 (Karn) and CIT v. SUNRAY COMPUTERS P. LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 196 (Karn) and ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in CITRIX SYSTEMS ASIA PACIFIC Pry. LTD., In re (2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR) reversed. The real nature of the transaction must be looked at upon reading the agreement as a whole. 7.6. In view of the above, the ground No.1 raised by the R…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…not liable to' deduct any tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA [2015] 372 ITR 476 (1.)(Delhi) affirmed. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J 345 ITR 494 (Karn) and CIT v. SUNRAY COMPUTERS P. LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 196 (Karn) and ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in CITRIX SYSTEMS ASIA PACIFIC Pry. LTD., In re (2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR) reversed. The real nature of the transaction must be looked at upon reading the agreement as a whole. 7.6. In view of the above, the ground No.1 raised by the R…

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2017-18 Mentor Graphics Ireland Acit Ltd. Vs Circle-2 (2) (1) Plot No.7A/2, Sec-142, International Taxation Noida, U.P. New Delhi Pan No.Aagcm6365H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

…the assessee. Therefore, consideration received from distributors is to be treated as royalty even under the DTAA as the definition covers the consideration received for the use of copyright. Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (345 ITR 494) held that payments made for software would be taxable as royalty even under the DTAA. The Hon’ble High Court held as under: ‘If is also clear from the abovesaid analysis of the DTAA, Income-tax Act, Copyright Act that the payment would constitute 'royalty' within the meaning of article 12(3) of the DTAA and even as per the provisions of sectio…

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Trusted Aerospace Engineering (P) Limited, Chennai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 473/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.04.2023
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ax at source under section 195 of the Act does not arise. It arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. The ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court judgment in the cited case (320 ITR 209) has been set aside in that case. From the above, it could be seen that what is relevant is whether the payment includes any income component and if so whether the same is chargeable to tax. In the appellant's case from the facts and from the legal position discussed as above, it appears that the payment made is not liable to tax in India. Hence…

Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…the Tribunal and the matter was restored to the AO. 19.2 Before us, the Ld A.R raised a new contention on this issue. He submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had decided an identical issue against the assessee in the assessee’s own case reported in 345 ITR 494 and for that purpose, the High Court had placed reliance on the decision rendered by it in the case of Samsung Electronics Ltd. However, the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Ltd has since been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 318/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 201(1)

…between. India and Singapore. Accordingly, he made addition of Rs.441.94 crores to the total income returned by the assessee. The A.O. placed his reliance onthe decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (345 ITR 494) and Synopsis International Old Limited (ITA Nos.11-15/ 2008). The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition. and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. ITA Nos.317 & 318/Bang/2023 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 11 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has sold only licenses to use the software and it did not part…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 317/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 201(1)

…between. India and Singapore. Accordingly, he made addition of Rs.441.94 crores to the total income returned by the assessee. The A.O. placed his reliance onthe decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (345 ITR 494) and Synopsis International Old Limited (ITA Nos.11-15/ 2008). The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition. and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. ITA Nos.317 & 318/Bang/2023 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 11 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has sold only licenses to use the software and it did not part…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Intenational Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm Singapore Pte Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 178/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.177 & 178/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ibm Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax No.12, Subramanya Arcade Intl. Taxn., Circle-1(2) Bannerghatta Main Road Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore 560 029 Pan No : Aacci2917B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Sharath Rao, A.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 Both Are Dated 11.1.2023. The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Common In Nature. Hence, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sharath Rao, A.R
Section 14Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A Nos.177 & 178/Bang/2023 M/s. IBM Singapore Pte. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.177 & 178/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. IBM Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax No.12, Subramanya Arcade Intl. Taxn., Circle-1(2) Bannerghatta Main Road Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore 560 029 PAN NO : AACCI2917B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Respondent by : Shri Sharath Rao, A.R. Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Intenational Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm Singapore Pte Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 177/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.177 & 178/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ibm Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax No.12, Subramanya Arcade Intl. Taxn., Circle-1(2) Bannerghatta Main Road Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore 560 029 Pan No : Aacci2917B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Sharath Rao, A.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 Both Are Dated 11.1.2023. The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Common In Nature. Hence, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sharath Rao, A.R
Section 14Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A Nos.177 & 178/Bang/2023 M/s. IBM Singapore Pte. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.177 & 178/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. IBM Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax No.12, Subramanya Arcade Intl. Taxn., Circle-1(2) Bannerghatta Main Road Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore 560 029 PAN NO : AACCI2917B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Respondent by : Shri Sharath Rao, A.R. Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronou…

Elsevier Ltd, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2351/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…s. CIT 222 3SCC 321. This is so because while deciding the matters relating to Wipro Ltd. and in Infosys Technology Ltd., the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court followed its own decisions in case of CIT vs. Samsung 14 ITA No.2351/Del./2022 Electronics Co. Ltd. 345 ITR 494 which stood reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre to Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, considering the fact that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decisions cited before us by the learned counsel for the assessee. We hold, the subscription fee received by the assessee from Indian customers…

Elsevier Inc, New York vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2350/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…is Centre of Excellence Vs. CIT 222 3SCC 321. This is so because, while deciding the matters relating to Wipro Ltd. and in Infosys Technology Ltd., the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court followed its own decisions in case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 345 ITR 494 which stood reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis. Centre of Excellence- Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, considering the fact that the issue in dispute is 14 ITA No.2350/Del./2022 squarely covered by the decisions cited before us by the learned counsel for the assessee, we hold, the subscription fee received by the as…