DIT v. Ericsson A.B

343 ITR 470High Court2012#327 most cited

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.

256

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v Ericsson AB · 343 ITR 470 · Section 9(1)(vi) royalty · DTAA royalty Article 12 · software payments · copyrighted article royalty · reimbursement data processing costs · make available clause · Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence · TDS Section 195

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 371204 Taxmann 192

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 195Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 201(1)(A)Section 9(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbbsection 9(1)(v)dependent agent pesection 9(2)section 44bbmake available clausesection 44bagency pesection 195(1)section 9(1)(vi)copyrighted articlesection 90(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Ericsson A.B

Rolls Royce Military Aero Engines Ltd vs. DDIT Int. Taxation Circle 2 (1)

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh R.S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…has been deleted, observing that the payments in question were tax deductible and the liability to deduct tax at source was on the payer: i. DIT vs Jacabs Civil Incorporated / Mitsubishi Corporation [2011 ] 330 ITR 578 (Delhi) ii. DIT vs Ericsson A.B. [2012] 343 ITR 470 (Delhi) iii. DIT vs Ngc Network Asia LLC [2009] 222 CTR 85(BOM.) iv. CIT vs Madras Fertilisers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Madras) v. Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. vs CIT 264 ITR 320 (Utt.) 8. Ld. DR submitted that interest u/s 234B is mandatory and therefore it is to be charged on the assessee. 9. We have carefully considered the rival cont…

Rolls Royce Military Aero Engines Ltd vs. DDIT Intl. Taxation Circle-2 (1)

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh R.S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…has been deleted, observing that the payments in question were tax deductible and the liability to deduct tax at source was on the payer: i. DIT vs Jacabs Civil Incorporated / Mitsubishi Corporation [2011 ] 330 ITR 578 (Delhi) ii. DIT vs Ericsson A.B. [2012] 343 ITR 470 (Delhi) iii. DIT vs Ngc Network Asia LLC [2009] 222 CTR 85(BOM.) iv. CIT vs Madras Fertilisers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Madras) v. Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. vs CIT 264 ITR 320 (Utt.) 8. Ld. DR submitted that interest u/s 234B is mandatory and therefore it is to be charged on the assessee. 9. We have carefully considered the rival cont…

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. ADIT (International Taxation) - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Gifford and Partners Ltd. -versus- Deputy Director of International (Since merged with Taxation (1), Kolkata Gifford LLP),Kolkata (PAN:AACCG2101R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Gifford and Partners Ltd. -versus- Assistant Director of International (Since merged with Taxation -1(1),Kolkata Gifford LLP),Kolkata (PAN:AACCG2101R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCA For the Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT…

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. DDIT, International Taxation - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Gifford and Partners Ltd. -versus- Deputy Director of International (Since merged with Taxation (1), Kolkata Gifford LLP),Kolkata (PAN:AACCG2101R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Gifford and Partners Ltd. -versus- Assistant Director of International (Since merged with Taxation -1(1),Kolkata Gifford LLP),Kolkata (PAN:AACCG2101R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCA For the Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT…

Capgemeni Business Services (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 7779/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Capgemini Business Assistant Commissioner Of Services (India) Ltd., Income Tax-1(2), Gate No.4, Unit 19, Mumbai Godrej Industries Complex, Vs. Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabci 1046A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri A.A. Khan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.A. Khan, D.R
Section 144C(1)Section 92A(2)(a)

…, in this respect has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd.” (2013) 39 taxmann.com 88 (Del.) and further on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “DIT vs. Ericson A.B.” (2012) 343 ITR 470. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R., relying upon the decisions of the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of “Reliance Infocom Ltd.” and in specific relying on para 29, 35 & 36 of the said decision, has contended that the software purchased by the assessee was a separate software and the same was not supplied along with the equipmen…

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

In the result, appeal may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 749/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Bomi Daruwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…on that in case of embedded software being integral part of machine, income on account of sale of software could not have been separately taxed as “Royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, he relied upon the following judgments:– i) DIT v/s Ericsson A.B., 343 ITR 470 (Delhi); ii) DIT v/s Nokia Networks O.Y., 358 ITR 259 (Delhi); 7 Galatea Limited iii) Bharati Airtel Limited v/s Commissioner of Customs, 286 ELT 270 (Bangalore); and iv) CIT v/s Alcatel Lucent, Canada, 372 ITR 476 (Del.). Second argument made by the Ld. Counsel for the 7. assessee is that even if it is admitted that payments made to the cust…

Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1321/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Membr Ay: 2011-12 Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1)(2) 507, 508 & 509, 5Th Floor International Taxation Meridian Tower, Windsor Place Room No.310 New Delhi 110 001 3Rd Floor, E 2 Block Prayaksh Kar Bhawan Civic Cetnre, Jln Marg New Delhi 110 002

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. and Sh. Jasvinder Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT, D.R
Section 144(13)

…erations carried out in India is to be subjected to Indian tax and that off shore suppliers are to be excluded. 6.6. He also relied on judgements of the Jurisdictional High Court in DIT vs. Nokia Networks OY 358 ITR 259 (Delhi) and DIT vs. Ericsson AB (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del.) wherein it is laid down that, in case of transaction of sale of goods, the determinative factor would be as to whether the property in goods would pass in India or not. Once the sale has taken place outside India, then even in case of a composite contract, the supply is to be excluded from taxation. 6.7. On taxability of fee for technical…

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Dehradun vs. JCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 758/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Vs. Jcit, International Tax Taxation, Ltd., C/O- M/S. Hemant Arora & Dehradun. Co. 1, Tyagi Road, Dehradun (Pan: Aaach5727Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

…India because the sale/supply of equipment got concluded outside India. Further, the learned Authorized Representative also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nokia Network OY reported in 358 ITR 259 and Ericsson reported in 343 ITR 470 and submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the above quoted rulings because of the following reasons: i. Supply of equipment was made outside India for which the consideration was received in acceptable foreign currency directly in Korea. ii. The consideration for supply of equipment does not contain any element of service re…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

…ecision of the jurisdictional High Court, placed reliance upon the following judgments in favour of the assessee: (i) Director of Income-tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (220 Taxmann 274(HC)(Delhi) (ii)Director of Income-tax vs. Ericsson A.B. (16 Taxman.com 371)(2011) 343 ITR 470(Del) However, since the issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. (cited supra) we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 23. In the result, grounds of appeal No.5(a) and (b) are rejected. 24. Ground No. 6 being against levy of intere…

M/S Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

…ecision of the jurisdictional High Court, placed reliance upon the following judgments in favour of the assessee: (i) Director of Income-tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (220 Taxmann 274(HC)(Delhi) (ii)Director of Income-tax vs. Ericsson A.B. (16 Taxman.com 371)(2011) 343 ITR 470(Del) However, since the issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. (cited supra) we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 23. In the result, grounds of appeal No.5(a) and (b) are rejected. 24. Ground No. 6 being against levy of intere…

Director of Income Tax -I vs. Ericsson Ab

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA/265/2014HC Delhi18 May 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 133(6)Section 133A

…year i.e. 1997-98, the Revenue unsuccessfully brought to tax the consideration received by the assessee, towards the supply of equipments. The matter ultimately culminated in a reported decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del). 3. For the succeeding years, 1999-2000 to 2004-05, assessments were pending. Apparently for some years, re-assessment notices had been issued and matters proceeded. In these circumstances, a survey was conducted on 22.11.2007 in the premises of Ericsson India Limited (EIL), a subsidiary of LME. For the concerned year, the assessme…

Director of Income Tax -I vs. Ericsson Ab

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA/261/2014HC Delhi18 May 2015
Section 133(6)Section 133A

…year i.e. 1997-98, the Revenue unsuccessfully brought to tax the consideration received by the assessee, towards the supply of equipments. The matter ultimately culminated in a reported decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Ericsson (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del). 3. For the succeeding years, 1999-2000 to 2004-05, assessments were pending. Apparently for some years, re-assessment notices had been issued and matters proceeded. In these circumstances, a survey was conducted on 22.11.2007 in the premises of Ericsson India Limited (EIL), a subsidiary of LME. For the concerned year, the assessme…

Intel Services Llc, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1528/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Farhat Hussain Quereshi, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1528/Bang/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) M/s.Intel Services, LLC (formerly known as Intel Services Inc), C/o Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. SRR2, #23-56P Devarabeesanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Block, Bangalore-560103. … Appellant PAN: AABCI0690L Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by: Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee, CA. Respondent by: Mr. Farhat Hussain Quereshi,…

CIT vs. Alcatel Lucent Canada

ITA-119/2015HC Delhi27 Feb 2015

…ITA 119/2015 & conn. Page 1 $~2 to 32 and 37 to 43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 27th February, 2015 + ITA 119/2015 CIT ..... Appellant versus ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA ..... Respondent + ITA 120/2015 CIT-1 ..... Appellant versus ALCATEL LUCENT ENTERPRISE ..... Respondent + ITA 121/2015 CIT-1 ..... Appellant versus ALCATEL LUCENT SHANGHAI BELL ..... Respondent + ITA 122/2015 CIT-1 ..... Appellant…

CIT-1 vs. Alcatel Lucent France

ITA/119/2015HC Delhi27 Feb 2015

…ITA 119/2015 & conn. Page 1 $~2 to 32 and 37 to 43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 27th February, 2015 + ITA 119/2015 CIT ..... Appellant versus ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA ..... Respondent + ITA 120/2015 CIT-1 ..... Appellant versus ALCATEL LUCENT ENTERPRISE ..... Respondent + ITA 121/2015 CIT-1 ..... Appellant versus ALCATEL LUCENT SHANGHAI BELL ..... Respondent + ITA 122/2015 CIT-1 ..... Appellant…

Director of Income Tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd

ITA/1034/2009HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 4Section 9(1)(vi)

…======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 1 of 174 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 3rd July, 2013 Judgment pronounced on:22nd November, 2013 + ITA 1034/2009 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. versus INFRASOFT LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra with Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACH…