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.

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. D.A. Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…acts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 40a(ia) of Rs.22,95,152/- which is supported by the decision of Apex Court in 239 ITR 587 and followed in CIT(International Taxation) Vs. Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. 320 ITR 209 (Karnataka). 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional depreciation claimed of Rs.18,26,347/-. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. (2001)…

Tti Team Telecom International Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed in terms of our directions as indicated above

ITA 2763/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tti Team Telecom Adit (It)-2(2) International Ltd. बनाम/ R.No.116, 1St Fl. C/O. Sudit K.Parekh & Co. Scindia House, Vs. Ballard House, 2Nd Floor, Ballard Pier, Adi Marzban Path, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-38 Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aacct5300M Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Jasbir S. Chauhan (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2016 30/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 9(1)(vi)

…d during the year under consideration bringing an amendment to the base agreement which was passed in the period relevant to A.Y. 2003-04 and further there has been judgments from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 345 ITR 494 and in the case of CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. 212 taxman 454 which are against the assessee on this issue, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly refused to follow the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. 4.3. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the base agreement remained the same, and the amendment agreement was only to accommodat…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Tally Solutions P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1463/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(D.R)For Respondent: Shri C. Ramesh, C.A
Section 40Section 41(1)

…s not recorded in the agreement dt.27.1.2009. The learned Departmental Representative further submitted that the payment for purchase of copy right in the software is in the nature of royalty as per the decision of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.(Kar) 345 ITR 494. 17. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that as regards the date referred in the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 as 30.9.2009, it is only the date on which the assessee has completed the negotiations and decided the consideration for purchase of the IPR and therefore there is no separate…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Aurigene Discovery Technologies Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1479/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar Verma, CIT - DR
Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ITA.1479/ Bang/2013 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1479/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant v. M/s. Aurigene Discovery Technologies Ltd, No.39-40, KIDB Industrial Area, Electronic City Phase –II, Hosur Road, Bengaluru .. Respondent PAN : AADCA2387A Assessee by : Shri. L. Bharath, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sanjay Kumar Verma, CIT - DR Heard on : 29.09.2016 Pronounced on : 23.11.2016 O R D E R P…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6843/MUM/2012[208-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…le Bonds (FCCB), since they were capital in nature. It is further contended that the learned CIT(A), while deleting the aforesaid disallowance had wrongly mentioned that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Ltd. (320 ITR 209) was overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when actually it was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. In ground No. 3 Revenue also contends that, without prejudice to the arguments put forth in grounds 1 and 2, even if the aforesaid (Assessment Year : 2008-09) expenditure incurred on issue of FCCBs is held to be revenue in nature, TD…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6711/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…le Bonds (FCCB), since they were capital in nature. It is further contended that the learned CIT(A), while deleting the aforesaid disallowance had wrongly mentioned that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Ltd. (320 ITR 209) was overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when actually it was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. In ground No. 3 Revenue also contends that, without prejudice to the arguments put forth in grounds 1 and 2, even if the aforesaid (Assessment Year : 2008-09) expenditure incurred on issue of FCCBs is held to be revenue in nature, TD…

Asst CIT 14(2), Mumbai vs. Venus International, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5010/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Office Of The Asstt. Vs. M/S. Venus International, Commissioner Of Income 26/28, Mohan Niwas, 1St Floor, Tax-14(2),Earnest House, Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor, Old Hanuman Lane, Nariman Point, Kalbadevi, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai-02. Pan: Aaafv 5850B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri R.A. Dyani Respondent By Shri Naresh Jain Date Of Hearing: 03-05-2016 Date Of Pronouncement:10-08-2016 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(2)Section 40Section 41

…the assessee has neither deducted the TDS on payment of commission nor made any application to the AO to that effect for nonpayment of TDS. Although ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue relied upon the judgment in the case of ‘Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’ 345 ITR 494 and relied upon the orders of AO. However after perusal of all the judicial pronouncements rendered by both the parties as 6 ACIT vs. M/s. Venus International well as orders passed by revenue authorities, we found that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already over-ruled and set aside the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the…

Gates India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. L. Chandok, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajsh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…essee form the liability to deduct tax at source (TDS). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by relying upon the judgement dated 24.09.2009 of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 209. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us now. 4. Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue relating to payment for “shrink-wrapped readymade software package” with deduction of tax at source had been discussed in several cases, and it had been held that such payments do not 5 I.T.A.No.813./Del/2015 come under the amb…

Sabmiiller Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3435/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3435/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 Sabmiller India Ltd., The Acit, Circle 11(1)(1), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skol Mumbai Vs. Breweries Ltd) Unit No. 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty Business Park, B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road,Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3449/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 The Acit, Circle 11(1)(1), Sab Miller India Ltd., बनाम/ Mumbai (Formerly Known As Skol Vs. Breweries Ltd) Unit No. 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty Business Park, B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 C.O. No. 108/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 3449/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 Sabmiller India Ltd., The Acit, Circle 11(1)(1), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skol Mumbai Vs. Breweries Ltd) Unit No. 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty Business Park

For Appellant: Shri N.K. ChandFor Respondent: Shri Hemen Chandariya
Section 154Section 40

…ich has been contested by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, International Taxation vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (345 ITR 494), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of software falls within the definition of 'Royalty' as per clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1 )(vi) of the Act?" 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that in so far as determination of arm’s length price of international transactions applying CUP method as m…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Shree Balaji Communications, Chennai

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

ITA 36/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 36/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Shree Balaji Communications, Income Tax, Vs. No. 18/126, Dhan Enclave, Non-Corporate Circle 20, Bhajani Kovil St., Choolaimedu, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 094. [Pan:Abifs0605A]] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.M. Bhusari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2016 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) Iv, Chennai, Dated 16.10.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Towards

For Appellant: Dr. M.M. Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “डी” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 36/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Shree Balaji Communications, Income Tax, Vs. No. 18/126, Dhan Enclave, Non-Corporate Circle 20, Bhajani Kovil St., Choolaimedu, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 094. [PAN:ABIFS0605A]] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 847/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…reign currency convertible bonds of Rs. 1304.13 crores and were thus capital in nature. 2. The CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance mention in ground No. 1 above by saying that the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (320 ITR 209) was overruled by the supreme court where in fact the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. 3. Without prejudice to ground Nos.1 and 2, the CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance mentioned above because in the alternative even if the expenditure was treated as revenue in nature TDS was not deducted as required u/s…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…reign currency convertible bonds of Rs. 1304.13 crores and were thus capital in nature. 2. The CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance mention in ground No. 1 above by saying that the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (320 ITR 209) was overruled by the supreme court where in fact the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. 3. Without prejudice to ground Nos.1 and 2, the CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance mentioned above because in the alternative even if the expenditure was treated as revenue in nature TDS was not deducted as required u/s…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 1332/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 144CSection 44Section 44BSection 9

…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…

Galatea Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5434/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Daym/S. Galatea Ltd. Dcit (International Taxation) P.O. 1156, Industrial Vs. Range 2(3)(2) Area, Dalton, Israel Mumbai Pan - Aadcg8396D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bomi Daruwala &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…ftware with the said machine was in the nature of ‘Royalty’, the learned D.R., inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - i) CIT vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (212 Taxman 454) (Kar); ii) CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (345 ITR 494) (Kar) 5.2.2 According to the learned D.R., after the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.1976, the consideration received by the assessee for transfer or sale of computer software would now be covered by the definition of ‘Royalty’ and that since the Explanation has been…

Infor Global Solutions Barneveld) Bv ( Now Known As Infor (Barneveld) Bv), Hyderabad vs. DDIT (It) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 777/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…f computer software in India cannot be taxed as “royalty”. 8. Before us, the Ld. DR relying upon the order of the AO submitted that, exactly on the same issue, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494 had decided this issue in favour of the Department by holding that, payment to a foreign software suppliers for procurement of ‘shrink wrap software’ amounts to payment of ‘royalty’ not only within the Article 12(3) of Indo –US DTAA but also in terms of section 9(1)(vi). Similar view was taken by the same High Court in the case of CIT vs Synopsis…

Infor Global Solutions Barneveld) Bv, Hyderabad vs. DDIT (It) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…f computer software in India cannot be taxed as “royalty”. 8. Before us, the Ld. DR relying upon the order of the AO submitted that, exactly on the same issue, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494 had decided this issue in favour of the Department by holding that, payment to a foreign software suppliers for procurement of ‘shrink wrap software’ amounts to payment of ‘royalty’ not only within the Article 12(3) of Indo –US DTAA but also in terms of section 9(1)(vi). Similar view was taken by the same High Court in the case of CIT vs Synopsis…

ITO (It) TDS 3, Mumbai vs. Ssa Global Technologies (I) P.Ltd ( Formerly Knwona As Infor Global Solutions (I) P.Ltd), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3049/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…f computer software in India cannot be taxed as “royalty”. 8. Before us, the Ld. DR relying upon the order of the AO submitted that, exactly on the same issue, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494 had decided this issue in favour of the Department by holding that, payment to a foreign software suppliers for procurement of ‘shrink wrap software’ amounts to payment of ‘royalty’ not only within the Article 12(3) of Indo –US DTAA but also in terms of section 9(1)(vi). Similar view was taken by the same High Court in the case of CIT vs Synopsis…

ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. Baan Global B.V. Now Known As Information Global Solution ( Barneveld) Bv, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7048/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…f computer software in India cannot be taxed as “royalty”. 8. Before us, the Ld. DR relying upon the order of the AO submitted that, exactly on the same issue, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494 had decided this issue in favour of the Department by holding that, payment to a foreign software suppliers for procurement of ‘shrink wrap software’ amounts to payment of ‘royalty’ not only within the Article 12(3) of Indo –US DTAA but also in terms of section 9(1)(vi). Similar view was taken by the same High Court in the case of CIT vs Synopsis…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Parpool Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3316/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. R S Negi Sr DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 209(1)(d)Section 234Section 234B

…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…

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd ( Merged With Reliance Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) (Ltu), Mumbai

ITA 3219/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 9(1)(vi)

…ate benches of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, however, has submitted that there is a change of position of law in view of the recent decisions of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ―CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and others‖ (2012) 345 ITR 494 and in the case of ―CIT vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd.‖ (2013) 212 taxman 454. The Ld. D.R. has further relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ―Reliance Infocom Ltd.‖ dated 06.09.13 reported in (2013) 37 CCH 0069 (Mum-Trib) to contend that the software purchased by the assessee was a separate softwar…