CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…a)(ia) for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments under section 195. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and others decision dated 24.9.2009 (1st decision) reported in [2010] 320 ITR 209 in support of the impugned conclusion. 53. The learned CIT(A) held in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 [IT(TP)A No. 799/Bang/2015 dated 10.11.2017]. 54. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This issue came for consideration before th…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…a)(ia) for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments under section 195. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and others decision dated 24.9.2009 (1st decision) reported in [2010] 320 ITR 209 in support of the impugned conclusion. 53. The learned CIT(A) held in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 [IT(TP)A No. 799/Bang/2015 dated 10.11.2017]. 54. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This issue came for consideration before th…

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

…h section 6 of the Act. Hence, no tax was deducted at source in respect of the commission paid to these non residents. 13.2. The Ld.AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 209 held that, the assessee should have either made TDS on commission paid or should have obtained an exemption certificate from the IT Dept. It was held that, in the absence of action taken on both these counts, commission paid is liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 13.3. The DRP referred to its own directions for AY 2010-…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…ing judicial pronouncements while characterizing the subject payments to be royalty being payments made for the “use of” or “right to use” of software (copyright):- 1. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Karnataka High Court), 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Synopsis International Old Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 454 (Karnataka High Court), 3. CIT v. IBM India Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 540 of 2008, judgment dated 21- 10-2011 (Karnataka High Court)] and 4. Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., In re, [2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR – New Delhi). 10. It is submitt…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…ing judicial pronouncements while characterizing the subject payments to be royalty being payments made for the “use of” or “right to use” of software (copyright):- 1. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Karnataka High Court), 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Synopsis International Old Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 454 (Karnataka High Court), 3. CIT v. IBM India Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 540 of 2008, judgment dated 21- 10-2011 (Karnataka High Court)] and 4. Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., In re, [2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR – New Delhi). 10. It is submitt…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…ing judicial pronouncements while characterizing the subject payments to be royalty being payments made for the “use of” or “right to use” of software (copyright):- 1. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Karnataka High Court), 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Synopsis International Old Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 454 (Karnataka High Court), 3. CIT v. IBM India Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 540 of 2008, judgment dated 21- 10-2011 (Karnataka High Court)] and 4. Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., In re, [2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR – New Delhi). 10. It is submitt…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…ing judicial pronouncements while characterizing the subject payments to be royalty being payments made for the “use of” or “right to use” of software (copyright):- 1. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Karnataka High Court), 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Synopsis International Old Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 454 (Karnataka High Court), 3. CIT v. IBM India Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 540 of 2008, judgment dated 21- 10-2011 (Karnataka High Court)] and 4. Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., In re, [2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR – New Delhi). 10. It is submitt…

M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 2529/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. EduNxt Global SDN BHD, The Assistant C/o. Manipal Global Commissioner of Income Education Services Tax, Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation 14, Old Airport Circle 1(1), Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. PAN: AADCE6923A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI,…

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

…us. We find the issue to be decided in the grounds raised by the assessee is in relation to taxability of payment in question in India in the hands of the recipient. The decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Ltd. 345 ITR 494 on the basis of which the revenue authorities concluded that the payment in question is in the nature of royalty, now stand overruled by the decision of the M/s. Kennametal Inc., USA Technology Way Page 22 of 25 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (2021) 125 Taxmann.com 42 (SC). The Hon’ble Supr…