Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson A.B

3 ITR 470Reported decision2012#15570 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)clarificatory amendmentbusiness connectioncomputer softwaresection 195non-residentsection 19transferpersoncompanysection 14

Judgments citing Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson A.B

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘ D ’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 713 & 715/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs. Alcatel Lucent International, International Taxation, Route De Villejust, Nokia New Delhi Paris, Saclay 91620 Nozay, Foreign, France PAN : AAICA7576 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Date of hearing 12.01.2022 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals…

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘ D ’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 713 & 715/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs. Alcatel Lucent International, International Taxation, Route De Villejust, Nokia New Delhi Paris, Saclay 91620 Nozay, Foreign, France PAN : AAICA7576 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Date of hearing 12.01.2022 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals…

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 6273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent, France, Circle-1(1)(1), International 3, Avenue Octave Greard, Taxation, Paris, France New Delhi Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent International, Circle-1(1)(1), International France, Taxation, 3, Avenue Octave Greard, New Delhi Paris, France Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Sh. Divyansh Singh, Adv. Department By Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, Cit

Section 9

…oyalty and. therefore. Section 9(l)(vi) was not attracted and the same reasons. Article 13(3) of the DTAA was not involved. 5. We have noticed, at the outset, that the ITAT had relied upon ruling of this Court in Director of Income Tax V Ericsson A.B. (2012) 3 ITR 470 wherein identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of software along with hardware - rather software embedded in the hardware amounted to royalty. After noticing several contentions of the revenue, this Court held in Ericsson A.B. (supra) follows:- “54. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions in the fa…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent France, France

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 5593/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent, France, Circle-1(1)(1), International 3, Avenue Octave Greard, Taxation, Paris, France New Delhi Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent International, Circle-1(1)(1), International France, Taxation, 3, Avenue Octave Greard, New Delhi Paris, France Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Sh. Divyansh Singh, Adv. Department By Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, Cit

Section 9

…oyalty and. therefore. Section 9(l)(vi) was not attracted and the same reasons. Article 13(3) of the DTAA was not involved. 5. We have noticed, at the outset, that the ITAT had relied upon ruling of this Court in Director of Income Tax V Ericsson A.B. (2012) 3 ITR 470 wherein identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of software along with hardware - rather software embedded in the hardware amounted to royalty. After noticing several contentions of the revenue, this Court held in Ericsson A.B. (supra) follows:- “54. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions in the fa…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent France, France

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 5592/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent, France, Circle-1(1)(1), International 3, Avenue Octave Greard, Taxation, Paris, France New Delhi Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent International, Circle-1(1)(1), International France, Taxation, 3, Avenue Octave Greard, New Delhi Paris, France Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Sh. Divyansh Singh, Adv. Department By Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, Cit

Section 9

…oyalty and. therefore. Section 9(l)(vi) was not attracted and the same reasons. Article 13(3) of the DTAA was not involved. 5. We have noticed, at the outset, that the ITAT had relied upon ruling of this Court in Director of Income Tax V Ericsson A.B. (2012) 3 ITR 470 wherein identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of software along with hardware - rather software embedded in the hardware amounted to royalty. After noticing several contentions of the revenue, this Court held in Ericsson A.B. (supra) follows:- “54. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions in the fa…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent France, France

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 5591/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent, France, Circle-1(1)(1), International 3, Avenue Octave Greard, Taxation, Paris, France New Delhi Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Alcatel Lucent International, Circle-1(1)(1), International France, Taxation, 3, Avenue Octave Greard, New Delhi Paris, France Pan :Aabcc4864E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Sh. Divyansh Singh, Adv. Department By Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, Cit

Section 9

…oyalty and. therefore. Section 9(l)(vi) was not attracted and the same reasons. Article 13(3) of the DTAA was not involved. 5. We have noticed, at the outset, that the ITAT had relied upon ruling of this Court in Director of Income Tax V Ericsson A.B. (2012) 3 ITR 470 wherein identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of software along with hardware - rather software embedded in the hardware amounted to royalty. After noticing several contentions of the revenue, this Court held in Ericsson A.B. (supra) follows:- “54. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions in the fa…

Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson A.B (3 ITR 470) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax