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 367,154 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 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.

ITO (It), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2249/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…r services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure and the same is outside rigors of the section 40(a)( ia) of the Act. 10. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 313 /[2010] 320 ITR 209 , relied on by the department, dealt on whether tax is to be deducted at source, under section 195 of the Act, in respect of payment made to non-resident, on import of software. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court is largely based on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corpn. of AP Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 587 / 105 T…

Allcatel Us International Marketing Inc. ( Now Known As Alcatel Lucent Usa Inc.), Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 7299/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Jasbir Chouhan-CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal-DR

Section 133Section 254(1)

…o treaties under the DTAA and that such consideration would not amount to royalty,that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had decided the issue in favour of the Department in the cases of Synopsis International Old Ltd.(212 taxman 454)Samsung Electronics Co Ltd(345 ITR 494),Wipro Ltd.(355ITR284),that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had decided the issue of software royalty both before the insertion of explanations 4,5 and 6 to section 9 (1) (vi) of the Act By the Finance Act, 2012 and even after their insertion,that the insertion had not altered the views of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, that the Mumbai Tribuna…

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 7735/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri. Jasbir Chouhan

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(iv)Section 90(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.7735/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, C-1, Block G Exchange Plaza, ……………. Appellant Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 PAN AAACN1797L v/s DDIT (IT) RG 4(2) ……………. Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri. Arvind Sonde Revenue by : Shri. Jasbir Chouhan Date of Hearing –11.04.2017 Date of Order -18.05.2017 O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated 30.08.2011 an…

M/S. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 407/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaimc Kinsey Knowledge Centre A Ito India Pvt. Ltd. Tds Ward 1(2) 3Rd Floor Of Block –Iii, Vs. International Vatika Business Park, Taxation, New Delhi Sector 49, Badshahpur, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Gir/Pan: Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pouras Kaka, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195(2)Section 9

…it is to be established that assessee by making such payment claims all or any of copyrights of such 10 literary work. Ld. Counsel submitted that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., reported in (2012) 345 ITR 494 has been distinguished by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd., reported in (2014) 264 CTR 329. He placed specific reference to para 98 of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infrasot Ltd., (supra) which reads as under: “98. We are not in agreement with the decision of the Karnataka High Court in…

Go Airlines (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7326/MUM/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Shaktijit Dey (Jm)

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…(343 ITR 470)(Delhi)  DIT Vs. Nokia Networks OY (358 ITR 259)(Delhi)  DIT Vs. Infrasoft (220 Taxmann 273)(Delhi) Learned AR submitted that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has taken a different view in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Others (345 ITR 494). However, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Infrasoft Ltd.(supra) and still held that remittance made towards use of computer software cannot be regarded as royalty. Learned AR further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products…

Asst CIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Khimji Visaram & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ngly, the A.O. held that commission received by the foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics (320 ITR 209), the A.O. held that the above said commission payment is liable to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. Accordingly, the A.O. disallowed the commission expenditure of Rs.85,80,661/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. On appeal, by the assessee, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in its order dated 08.10…

Wintac Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Anil Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 32Section 40Section 9

…s of other High Courts which apply to the facts of the case that amounts paid for purchase of packaged software cannot be royalty. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Samsung Electronics Ltd (2011) 345 ITR 494 to hold that payment made to the software vendor as royalty, when the said case is not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that appellant was obliged to deduct tax at source in the previous Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the payment made to the vendor for acquisition of license, increase in users and extensi…

M/S. I 2 Technologies (Netherland) B.V., Mumbai vs. ADIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee for AYs 2002-03, 2004-05 are allowed and the appeal filed by Revenue against deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is dismissed

ITA 2410/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M.V.Rajguru

Section 21(1)(c)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ITA No(s). 2410/M/2007, 6449/M/2008 & 1718/M/2008 i2 Technologies( Netherland)BV IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6449 /Mum/2008 (Assessment Year- 2004-05) M/s i 2 Technologies ACIT (International Taxation) - (Netherland) BV, 3 (1), 143-B&C,S.D.F. –V, Mumbai Vs. SEEPZ, Andheri East Mumbai-400096 PAN:AACI0320B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1718 /Mum/2007 (Assessment Year- 2002-03) ACIT(International Taxation) -3 M/s i 2 Technologies (1), (Netherland) BV, Mumbai 143-B&C,S.D.F. –V, Vs. SEEPZ, Andheri…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7513/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ted by him that in any case even prior to said amendment the amount was liable to be taxed as ‘royalty’ as was held in many judgments. Reliance was placed by him on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Company Limited 345 ITR 494 and requested for reversing the order of Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra in the Ld. Senior Counsel of the assessee vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was firstly argued by him that the payment for purchases of software was actually meant for acquiring the ‘copy righted article’ and not for ‘transfer of any right in a copyright ‘. Acco…

Avesthagen Ltd vs. Dy DIT

In the result, both these appeals are

ITA 884/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Kusum R.H, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi, JCIT

Section 193Section 201Section 201(1)

…ll Lines under Customs Tariff entry 3002.90.90 will not detract the position that payment is for technical services and not for supply of cell lines. After a detailed discussion , he has relied on the Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court’s decision in Samsung 320 ITR 209(Kar). However, the assessee could not lay any material to assail the above findings and hence we find that the order of the CIT (A) does not require any interference. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed. 07. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT (IT) A.972/Bang/2010 & IT (IT) A.884/Bang/2013 are dismissed. Order p…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 729/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul K Mitra, Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir S Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…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…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 3818/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul K Mitra, Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir S Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 144C

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 5051/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul K Mitra, Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir S Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 144C

ITO (TDS) Ltu, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industreis Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6870/MUM/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(2)

…in which the software is embedded may pass to the buyer, but, the title to Intellectual Property in the software does not. The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. & Others (2012) 345 ITR 494 wherein it has been observed that under the agreement, what had been transferred was only a license to use the copyright belonging to the non-resident subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement and that the non-resident supplier continued to be the owner of the copyright and all other intellectual property rights; license is granted for…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) (Ltu), Mumbai

ITA 3222/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(2)

I T C Limited, Kolkata vs. ADIT(It) 2(1), Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 673/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 673/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.C. Limited -Vs.- A.D.I.T. (I.T.)-2(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 5950 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri N.B.Som, Jcit. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, JCIT. Sr.DR

Section 195Section 201

…the same does not give rise to any royalty income and would be the ‘business income’ of the non-resident. The learned DR however placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in “CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. & Others” (2012) 345 ITR 494 wherein it has been observed that under the agreement, what had been transferred was only a license to use the copyright belonging to the non- resident subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement and that the non-resident supplier continued to be the owner of the copyright and all other intellectual property rights; license is granted fo…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered

ITA 936/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anantha Krishanan NFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan (CIT-DR)

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ ‘एल’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.936/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Dassault Systemes The Dy. Director of Income SolidWorks Corporation Tax (International Taxation)- Vs. C/o. BMR & Associates LLP 2(1)(2) 31, Sudha Centre, 2nd Floor, Mumbai Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFCS8787E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent)…

ADIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Ufis Airport Solutions Pte Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5606/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& C.N. Prasad (Jm)

…the source code. 6. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. (345 ITR 494) is in favour of the revenue. 7. Having regard to the rival submissions, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference as he has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ericsson A.B. (supra). We further noticed that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has reaffirmed…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Expro Gulf Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6589/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…e are clearly of the opinion that when a duty is cast on the payer to pay the tax at source, on failure, no interest can be imposed on the payee-assessee." An important decision is that of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494/[2011] 203 Taxman 477/16 taxmann.com 141, which also considered the same issue, i.e. the obligation under Section 195 (1). The High Court in the first instance had rejected the Revenue's appeal; the Supreme Court remitted the matter - for determination as to whether income by way of royalty had been made out in the facts of the case. The High Cou…

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) TDS 3, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1992/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R Gandhi / Ms. RituFor Respondent: Shri Jabir Chouhan / Raj Guru

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1993/M/2015 (AY 2009-2010) ICICI Securities Ltd., फनाभ/ ITO (IT)-TDS -3, ICICI Centre, HT Parekh Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAACI0996E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Ms. Krupa R Gandhi / Ms. Ritu Punjabi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Jabir Chouhan / Raj Guru M.V., DRs सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 02.02.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2…