What is DIT v. Ericsson A.B authority for?

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

How many judgments cite DIT v. Ericsson A.B?

256 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Ericsson A.B (343 ITR 470), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Ericsson A.B come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vi), Section 195, Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 144C(13), Section 234A.

DIT v. Ericsson A.B (343 ITR 470)

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ired to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT v. P a g e | 16 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Ericsson AB [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman 192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com 225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (s…

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,NETHERLANDS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTL. TAX. 2(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…e definition of “royalty”, as given in Article 12(3). This proposition is squarely covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (supra), the decision of Delhi High Court in Nokia Network (supra) and DIT v/s Ericson AB, [2012] 343 ITR 470. Even the decisions of Madras High Court as relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is not applicable which is evident from the issue involved as is evident from the substantial question of law which were formulated by the High Court for adjudication. Hence, the said decisions are not applicable. 19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC

ITA/150/2025HC Delhi29 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

For Appellant: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr. Anant Mann, JSCFor Respondent: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 260ASection 9

…ITA Nos.150/2025 & 154/2025 Page 1 of 36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 29.05.2025 + ITA 150/2025 & CM APPL. 29405/2025 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 ....Appellant Versus AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC ....Respondent AND + ITA 154/2025 & CM APPL. 29646/2025 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 .....Appellant Versus AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr. Anant Mann, JSC Ms. Aditi Sabharwal and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocates for the Revenue. For the Res…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)_4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman 192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com 225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (s…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITEDIUM,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman 192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com 225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (s…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman 192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com 225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (s…

M/S. SHELL INTERATIONAL PETROLEUM CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is\nnot in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are\nallowed and Ground No

ITA 1244/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)

…orders passed by the High Court\nwere assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that\nsimilar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case\nof DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman\n192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com\n225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however\ntook a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The\nSupreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both\nthe High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence\n(P) L…

M/S SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)- 4 (2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is\nnot in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are\nallowed and Ground No

ITA 7499/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)

…orders passed by the High Court\nwere assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that\nsimilar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case\nof DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman\n192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com\n225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however\ntook a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The\nSupreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both\nthe High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence\n(P) L…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…orders passed by the High Court\nwere assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that\nsimilar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case\nof DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman\n192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com\n225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however\ntook a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The\nSupreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both\nthe High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence\n(P) L…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…orders passed by the High Court\nwere assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that\nsimilar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case\nof DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman\n192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com\n225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however\ntook a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The\nSupreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both\nthe High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence\n(P) L…

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…orders passed by the High Court\nwere assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that\nsimilar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case\nof DIT v. Ericsson A.B [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman\n192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com\n225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however\ntook a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The\nSupreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both\nthe High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence\n(P) L…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/11/2022HC Karnataka07 Feb 2025

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 260

…. 11 of 2022 c/w ITA No. 12 of 2022, ITA No. 14 of 2022 & ITA No. 15 of 2022 119 are very clear in that respect. The Supreme Court has referred to the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax -Vs.- Ericsson A.B. [(2012) 343 ITR 470], Director of Income Tax -Vs.- Nokia Networks OY [(2013) 358 ITR 259]. Similarly, a reference is also made to the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax -Vs.- Infrasoft Ltd. [(2014) 264 CTR 329] and CIT -Vs.- ZTE Corporation [(2017) 392 ITR 80] to hold in paragraphs No.119 and 120 as under: “119. Fourthly,…