CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320High Court2009#324 most cited

What is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft authority for?

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

259

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft · 310 ITR 320 · reimbursements not taxable · no profit element · Section 9(1)(vi) · Section 9(1)(vii) · Section 195 · Section 90(2) · DTAA override · withholding tax on FTS royalty · fees for technical services · royalty income

Also reported as

177 Taxmann 81220 CTR 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 14(a)/14(b) of the Copyrights ActSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 195(2)fees for included servicessection 44bbsection 9(1)(vi)section 44bwithholding taxcopyrighted articleroyalty incomesection 90(2)section 9(1)fees for technical servicespermanent establishment

Judgments citing CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1452/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1451/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1450/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1237/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1236/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1235/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1234/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1233/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

…ons:  . Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Income tax Officer 361 ITR 575 (Madras High Court)  CIT vs CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Private Limited 48 taxmann.com 264 (Karnataka High Court)  CIT vs Siemens Aktiongeswellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bombay High Court)  Viacom 18 Media Private Limited vs ADIT (IT)-2(2) 44 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai Tribunal) ……. Accordingly, in view of the above decision, the payment for lease of transponder capacity received from TCL by the Assessee, should neither be treated as 'royalty' under the India-UK DTAA nor under Act.” 1. Inmarsat does not have a Perma…

Csg International Ltd vs. DDIT International Taxation Circle 1 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 264/Del/2008 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 M/S Csg International Ltd. Vs Ddit, (Now Known As Comverse Kenan Uk), Circle-1(1), Adelphi House, 1-11 John Adam Intl. Taxation, Street, London Wc2N 6Ht New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3819N

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ed to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as “royalty”, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. Following the decision in case of Siemens AG (310 ITR 320) (Bombay), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. Once assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as “royalty” despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. 22 CSG International Ltd. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with four categories: (i) The first category deals with cases in…

M/S. Essity Hygiene and Health Ab, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 778/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.778/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) M/S. Essity Hygiene & Health Ab, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmi Axis, 6Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aatcs-0899-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation)- 4(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan
Section 143(3)

…element, and, therefore, when a receipt by the assessee is bereft of income element, as a pure reimbursement inherently is, it cannot be brought to tax in the hands of that assessee. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Siemens AG [(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom)], have accepted this proposition and observed as follows: That leaves us with the last contention as to whether the amounts by way of reimbursement are liable to tax. To answer that issue, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra). The learn…

Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax), Pune

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

ITA 253/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Subhakanta Sahu
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom.). In the light of the above discussion, it becomes vivid that if the provisions of the Treaty are more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis its counterpart in the Act, then the assessee shall be entitled to be ruled by the provisions of the Treaty. 18.1. Having seen that the payment falls within the definition of `Fees for technical service…

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Range-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…361 ITR 575 (Mad), the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants (P) Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongeswellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom). Reliance has been placed on the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd. vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2(2), Mumbai(2014) 44 taxmann.com 1 (Mum-Trib) in support of the argument that this is the view taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. Notwithstanding the fact that at that point of time the…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…ely makes use of the facility, though he does not himself use the equipment. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 taxmann.com 8/238 Taxman 577/382 ITR 114 and CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 8/310 ITR 320 (Bom.) have also taken similar view in the context of use of transponder facility. This view has been affirmed by the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 325 (Mum.), wherein it has been held that u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act, payment for 'bandwidth services' is not assessable as 'royalty' if the Asse…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…ely makes use of the facility, though he does not himself use the equipment. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 taxmann.com 8/238 Taxman 577/382 ITR 114 and CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 8/310 ITR 320 (Bom.) have also taken similar view in the context of use of transponder facility. This view has been affirmed by the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 325 (Mum.), wherein it has been held that u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act, payment for 'bandwidth services' is not assessable as 'royalty' if the Asse…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

…(TS – 1075 – ITAT – 2021), wherein the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Skies Satellite BV (2016)(68 taxmann.com 8) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009)(310 ITR 320) were preferred over the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd (supra), in the absence of any decision rendered on this issue by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. The Ld A.R also relied on the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Netcracker Technol…

Tibco Software Bv, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It), Circle-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1348/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 274

…se. However, the above argument misses the vital point namely the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty. On the wording of the treaty, we have already held in Ericsson (supra) that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty. Therefore, we decide question of law no. 1 & 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue."(page 281) The High Court then followed its own j…

Tibco Software Bv, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation), Circle -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1554/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 274

…se. However, the above argument misses the vital point namely the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty. On the wording of the treaty, we have already held in Ericsson (supra) that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty. Therefore, we decide question of law no. 1 & 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue."(page 281) The High Court then followed its own j…

New Skies Satellites B. V, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 436/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…tic "laws in force". It was in this context that the Bombay High Court held that they were unable to accept the assesse's contention that the law applicable would be the law as it existed at the time the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement was entered into. [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom) ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 37 This is the context in which the ambulatory approach to tax treaty interpretation was not rejected. The situation before this Court however is materially different as there is in fact a definition of the word royalty under Article 12 of both DTAA, thus dispensing with the need for recourse…

Tibco Software B.V., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (It), Circle - 2, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kumar
Section 144C(13)Section 274

…se. However, the above argument misses the vital point namely the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty. On the wording of the treaty, we have already held in Ericsson (supra) that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty. Therefore, we decide question of law no. 1 & 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue."(page 281) The High Court then followed its own…