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 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 366,339 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 195 Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 144C(13)Section 234A Section 201(1)(A)Section 9(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbb section 9(1)(v)dependent agent pe section 9(2)section 44bb make available clause section 44b agency pe section 195(1)section 9(1)(vi)copyrighted article section 90(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Ericsson A.B

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 984/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…dware, it was not open for the tax authorities to split the same and consider a part of the payment for software to be treated as royalty. DIT vs. Ericsson A.B., Ericsson Radio Page no. System A.B. and Metapath Software 129-para no. International Ltd. [2011] 343 ITR 470 (HC 61 Del) We thus hold that payment received by the assessee was towards the title and GSM system of which software was an inseparable parts incapable of independent use and it was a contract for supply of goods. Therefore, no part of the payment therefore can be classified as payment towards royalty. ADIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft [2012]…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/DEL/2011[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

Nokia Net Works Nokia Group Finland vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1964/DEL/2001[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 3

…es he submitted that no income per se has accrued to assessee and these are only preparatory 46 I.T.As. No.1963 & 1964/DEL/2001 activities. Strong reliance was also placed on to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Ericsson A.B., 343 ITR 470 (Delhi HC), wherein it has been held as follows:- “20. The aforesaid analysis will bring forth, the legal position that the places of negotiation, the place of signing of agreement or formal acceptance thereof or overall responsibility of the assessee are irrelevant circumstances. Since the transaction relates to the sale of goods, the relevant f…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Gruop Finland vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1963/DEL/2001[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 3

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 2058/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2058/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Shell Information Technology Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of International Bv, Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 1St Floor, Lodha Excelus, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Road, Mumbai - 400038 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400011 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics9091A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Madhuragrawal (Ar) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Samuel Darse (Cit Dr) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2018

For Appellant: Shri MadhurAgrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…us M. Tech India Put Ltd (supra) and again in the decisions of Alacatel Lucent, Canada, reported [2015] 372 ITR 476, wherein 11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying upon its earlier two decisions in the case of DIT us Ericson, [2012] 343 ITR 470 and DIT vs M/s Nokia Networks, reported in 358 ITR 259 (Del) concluded that, when assessee supplies the software which is incorporated on CD, it has applied only a tangible property and payment made for acquiring such a property cannot be regarded as payment by way of royalty. The relevant observation of the High Court in Alcatel Lucent (supra) i…

M/S. Tata Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha ChoudaryFor Respondent: S/Shri Vivek Aggarwal and Mukesh Jha

Section 115ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…rectified, wherein the Tribunal in its order had failed to consider the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (2012) 51 SOT 399 (Pune) and also the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. & two others (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del). Thus, the Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2017 has recalled its order in Cummins Inc. (supra). It may also be noted that Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in bunch of Miscellaneous Applications had also recalled its order in DIT Vs. Reliance Infocom Ltd. / Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd., against which the Revenue filed Writ Petition before the…

Toyo Enggineering India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 6219/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru –Sr.DR

Section 145Section 254(1)

…cept the right to make copies and issue them to the public. Just because one has the copyrighted article, it does not follow that one has also the copyright in it. 71. In the case of DIT v. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 66 DTR (Del) 1: (2012) 246 CTR (Del) 422: (2012) 343 ITR 470(Del), one issue that the Delhi High Court was considering was whether the consideration for supply of software was payment by way of royalty and hence assessable both under s. 9(1)(vi) and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the government of India and Sweden? The High Court relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Tat…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Western Outdoor Interactive P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 247/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…eaning of Explanation 2(v) to section 9(l)(vi), it is necessary to establish that there is transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any license) in respect of copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work, as held in DIT v. Ericcson A B 343 ITR 470 (Del.) and followed in CIT v. Alcatel Lucent Canada 372 ITR 476 (Del.) Examination of the Content Agreements of the appellant with Columbus Travel Media Ltd. and Zagat Survey LLC reveal that the assessee has obtained non exclusive, non transferable licenses from both parties. The assessee cannot edit, modify, use copy, transmit, display or redist…

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-1 vs. Alcatel Lucent Canada

ITA/227/2018HC Delhi23 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 9(1)(vi)

…er such retrospective effects have the effect of implementing the provisions of a treaty, which has substantially similar or are identical cause with the provisions of law has been gone into in two judgments of this Court in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B., (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Delhi) and DIT Vs. Nokia Networks OY & Others, 358 ITR 259. This issue was again re-considered in the judgment of the Division Bench as well as the other judgment in Director Of Income Tax vs New Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114. Furthermore, this court had on identical ground rejected the Revenue’s appeal in Commissioner of Income…

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 837/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…made by the assessee was for acquiring copy of software programme,that he had also held that the assessees did not acquire any copyright over such software,that the DR did not challenge the aforesaid finding of the FAA.He referred to the case of Ericsson A.B.(343 ITR 470) He relied upon the cases of Ericsson A.B.(supra),Infrasoft Ltd. (220 Taxman 273), ZTE Corporation(392 ITR80),National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (ITA/7735/Mum. /20U),OECD Commentary on Article 12 and stated that the facts of the assessees’ cases were similar to that of Ericsson’s case,that the payment made by the assessees to Lucent and other…

The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Communicatioins Ltd. ( Formerly Known As M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd), Navi Mumbai

ITA 4877/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

Pidilite Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 2(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, for

ITA 2174/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 191Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…i HC) (para 12-13) CIT v. Vinzas Solutions India (P.) Ltd. (77 taxmann.com 279) DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. (264 CTR 329) (Delhi HC) (para 97 to 100) CIT v. Halliburton Export Inc. (ITA No. 36372016) (Delhi HC) (follows Infrasoft- para 5-9) DIT v. Ericsson A.B. (343 ITR 470) (Delhi HC) Galatea Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 749/Mum./2015) (Mum.) DDIT v. Solid Works Corpn. (51 SOT 34) (Mum.) Addl. DIT v. Baan Global BV (ITA No. 70487Mum/2010) (Mum.) (para 11 & 13) Shinhan Bank v. DDIT (ITA No. 19367Mum72014) (Mum.) (para 8) DDIT v. M7s. Reliance Industries Industries Ltd. and vice-versa (ITA No. 19807Mum- 2008 and other…

Landmark Graphics Corporation, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5285/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2007-08 Landmark Graphics Adit Corporation Vs. International C/O Nangia & Company, Ca Taxation Suite 4 A, Plaza M 6 Subhash Road Jasola Dehradun 248 001 New Delhi 110 025 Pan: Aabcl1012F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Amit Arora & Sh. Vishal Misra, Cas Respondent By Sh. Gk Dhall, Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing 11.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.18 Order Per Beena A Pillai

Section 143(3)Section 209(1)(d)Section 234BSection 44Section 9(1)(vi)

…oyalty as per Article 12 of the DTAA and also the decision of Special Bench in case of Motorola Inc Vs. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 which was subsequently affirmed in cases of DIT Vs. Nokia Networks (2013) 358 ITR 259 (Delhi), DIT Vs. Ericsson AB, New Delhi (2012) 343 ITR 470, DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 273, Data mine International Vs. Addl DIT (2016) 48 ITR (Trib.) 229. The 5 A.Y.2007-08 Landmark Graphics Corporation vs. ADIT issue that of contract for training is covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ONGC Ltd. Vs, CIT (2015) 376 ITR 306. In this particular case, the assessee claim…

ADIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Communications Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 5080/MUM/2008[]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas - DR

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./No.5080/Mum/2008; 4901/Mum/2017; 4672/Mum/2007; आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील 5084/Mum/2008;4899/Mum/2007; 4927/Mum/2007; 4255/…

Intech Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bleintec Billing Ireland V. The Assistant Director Of Income –Tax C/O S.R.B.C & Associates Llp (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range 3(1), Scindia House, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai - 400 038 Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan No: Aadca 7890 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Samuel Darse

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…s 425 to 446 of the paper book) held that the payment for copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of 'Royalty' under the DTAA. 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ericsson Radio Systems AB (343 ITR 470) held that the consideration paid by the cellular operators can be treated as Royalty' only if the cellular operators had obtained all or any of the copyrights in such software that is protected in India as a literary work. Further, the Hon’ble High Court held that a distinction also needs to be made between acquisition of a 'copyright right' and…

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Purnandu Jain (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 927/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 926 & 927/Bang/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ito (International Taxations), Limited Ward 2(1), Bangalore बनाम/ Trent House, First Floor, G Block, (Now Transferred To Ito (Tds)- Vs. Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Complex, Ltu, Mumbai)) Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaics1404 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Dinesh Patil ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 14Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…s no withholding tax liability on such payments.” 8. Various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are as under: (a) DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. (264 CTR 329) (Del He) (b) DIT vs Nokia Networks QY (358 ITR 259) (Del He) (c) DIT vs Ericsson A. B. (343 ITR 470) (Del He) (d) CIT vs Halliburton Export Inc (ITA No 363 of 2016) (Del He) (e) DDIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd (159 ITO 208) (Mum ITAT) (f) Capgimini Business Services (India) Ltd Vs ACIT (158 ITD 1) (MUM ITAT) (g) ADIT vs. Baan Global BV (ITA No 7048/Mum/2010) (Mum ITAT) (h) Galatea Limited vs CIT (157 ITD 938) (Mum ITAT) M/s. Shell India Markets…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1203/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR

Section 143(3)Section 90

…in in the case of Principal CIT vs M.Tech India Pvt Ltd (supra) and again in the decisions of Alacatel Lucent, Canada, reported [2015] 372 ITR 476 , wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court relying upon its earlier two decisions in the case of DIT vs Ericson , [2012] 343 ITR 470 and DIT vs M/s Nokia Networks, reported in 358 ITR 259 (Del) concluded that, when assessee supplies the software which is incorporated on CD, it has applied only a tangible property and payment made for acquiring such a M/s Sh e ll In fo rm a tio n Te c h n o lo g y In te rn a t i o n a l BV , A .Ys . 9 -1 0 &1 0 -1 1 ) property cannot be regarde…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR

Section 143(3)Section 90

Gartner Ireland Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 195/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.195/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gartner Ireland Limited Dy. Cit (International Taxation)- C/O. Bsr & Co. Llp, 2(3)(2), Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Scindia House, Mumbai Apollo Mills Compound, Vs. N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 2919 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samuel Darse

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Section 209Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.195/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gartner Ireland Limited Dy. CIT (International Taxation)- C/o. BSR & Co. LLP, 2(3)(2), Lodha Excelus, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Scindia House, Mumbai Apollo Mills Compound, Vs. N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCG 2919 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Samuel…

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 5329/MUM/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 5326-5329/Mum/2014, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा" िनधा" रण वष" रण वष" /Assessment Year: Not Applicable रण वष" Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Asstt. Director Income Tax-(Intl. 6Th Floor Eectric Mansion, Taxation)-3(2) Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. 1St Floor, Room No.132, Scindia House Mumbai-400 025. N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier Mumbai-400 038. Pan: Aaacb 2900 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajguru M.V. Assessee By: S/Shri Ronak Doshi/Hardik Nirmal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार /Per Rajendra,Am: राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 21/2/2014 Of The Cit(A)-10,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Identical,So, We Are Adjudi -Cating Them Together.Assessee, A Public Limited Company, Is Engaged In Manufacturing Of Electric Motors,Transformers, Gearless Machines For Elevators & Marketing Of Drives & Maintenance Products.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ronak Doshi/Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M.V

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(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 r…