How many judgments cite DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.?

269 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. (39 Taxmann.com 88), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vi), Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 115A, Section 234C, Section 9(1)(vi)(c).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.

39 Taxmann.com 88High Court2013#299 most cited

What is DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. authority for?

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

269

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. · computer software royalty · Section 9(1)(vi) · copyrighted article · fees for included services · fees for technical services · tax treaty · non-resident income · business income · DTAA

Also reported as

220 Taxmann 273264 CTR 329332 ITR 222

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 143(3)Section 270A Section 115A Section 234C Section 9(1)(vi)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

copyrighted article section 9(1)(vi)fees for included services royalty income computer software section 9(1)(vii)section 9(1)tax treaty fees for technical services section 195 liable to tax non-resident

Judgments citing DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…otification No. 36/2010 [F. No. 501/13/1980-FTD-I], dated 20-5-2010. 158 The High Court then followed its own judgment in Ericsson A.B. (supra), deciding the case in favour of the assessee. 112. In Director of Income Tax v. Infrasoft Ltd., (2014) 264 CTR 329 [“Infrasoft”],44 a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, by an exhaustive analysis of the provisions contained the India-USA DTAA, the Income Tax Act and the Copyright Act, dealt with a situation in which the assessee who was primarily into the business of developing and manufacturing civil engineering software, licensed the said softwa…

Trimble Solutions Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is party allowed

ITA 5340/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ftware would be its “business income” and cannot be regarded as “royalty” income under the provisions of India-Finland tax treaty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 329 (Del). In the said judgment the Hon’ble High Court had observed that the consideration received by the assessee on grant of licences for use of software is not taxable as “royalty” within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and the USA. Also, the ITAT, Mumbai “L” Bench in DDIT Vs. Reliance Communications Ltd. (2018) 52 CCH 292…

Qliktech International Ab, Banglore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 250(6)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ght about by the Finance Act, 2012 can be read into the treaty or not. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material on record. 8. We find from the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of DCIT Vs Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 has elaborately explained as to what constitutes licensing agreement, its exclusivity, non-transferability, as to what constitutes a copyright and how the amounts paid for transfer of copyright and amounts paid for royalty defer in connection with the Article 7 and Article 12 of the DTAA. The judgments also dealt with the licenses, copyrights, lo…

Trimble Solutions Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is party allowed

ITA 6483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Divesh Chawla, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Avaneesh Tiwari, DR

Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ftware would be its “business income” and cannot be regarded as “royalty” income under the provisions of India-Finland tax treaty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 329 (Del). In the said judgment the Hon’ble Trimble Solutions 11 High Court had observed that the consideration received by the assessee on grant of licences for use of software is not taxable as “royalty” within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and the USA. Also, the ITAT, Mumbai “L” Bench in DDIT Vs. Reliance Communications L…

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I–2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3992/Del/2017 & SA number 250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey Gupta, C.A. Department by: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Symantec Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2013-14 Symantec Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., 6 Temasek Boulevard, #12-01, Suntec Tower Four, Singapore 038986 ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaocs1828F Vs The Dcit (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), Room No.419, Block E-2, Civic Centre, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent J.L.N.Marg, New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Ms. Deepika Aggarwal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1000/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2013-14 Symantec Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., 6 Temasek Boulevard, #12-01, Suntec Tower Four, Singapore 038986 ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAOCS1828F vs The DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), Room No.419, Block E-2, Civic Centre, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent J.L.N.Marg, New Delhi-…

Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3966/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी "शांत मह"ष", लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3966/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15 Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd., B-92, 9th Floor, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAGCM6365H vs The ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), International taxation, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant…

Nagravision Sa, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9130/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.9130/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ced at pages 40 onwards of the Paperbook. Special reference was made to clause 8, 8.1 to 8.7 of the Agreement. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 (Del.) and DIT & Ors. Vs New Skies Satellite BV & Ors. [2016] 382 ITR 0114 (Del.). He also pointed out that reliance placed upon by the authorities below on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in DIT vs Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar.) is misplaced. It was also brought to our knowledge that the Hon’ble Delhi…

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. Dy CIT (It) 2 (1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7313/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dassault Systems Solid The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Works Corporation, Vs. Tax– (International Taxation)- C/O Deloitte Haskins & 2(1)(2) Sells Llp , 7Th Floor, Asv Mumbai Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai – 600 017 Pan No. Aafcs8787E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Singh, CIT D.R

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…been decided in view of the latest law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ericsson AV (343 ITR 470) (Del.) On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, it came into the notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 (Del.) and in case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) has P a g e | 12 decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Since, the matter has also been considered by the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and decided this issue in favour of the assessee specifically for the A.Y.2002-03 in ITA No. 3095/Mum/2007 order dated 15th De…

Trimble Solutions Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7410/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Divesh Chawla, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Avaneesh Tiwari, Sr. D.R

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

…ftware would be its „business income‟ and cannot be regarded as „royalty‟ income under the provisions of India-Finland tax treaty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 329 (Del). In Trimble Solutions Corporation Vs. Dy. CIT ITA No 7410/Mum/2017 – A.Y 2013-14 12 ITA No. 5271/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2014-15 the said judgment the Hon‟ble High Court had observed that the consideration received by the assessee on grant of licences for use of software is not taxable as „royalty‟ within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the DTAA be…

Aspect Software Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7698/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] ITA No. 8276/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2015-16] Aspect Software Inc Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Rashmi Chopra & Associates Circle – 1(1)(1) C- 56, Nizamuddin [East] International Taxation New Delhi PAN: AAGCA 7513 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv Shri Arpit Goyal, CA Department By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.06.2020 Date of Pronouncem…

Aspect Software Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7698/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6687/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2020AY 2015-16

Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

…d, therefore, the same was not in the nature of royalty in the hands of Steria France for the purposes of deduction of tax at source. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Infra Software Ltd. reported in 220 Taxmann 274 wherein the Hon’ble 21 Steria (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi High Court had upheld that order of the Tribunal wherein it was held that the amount received by the assessee under the License Agreement for allowing the use of software would not be royalty under the DTAA since what was transferred was neither the copy right nor the use of the c…

M/S Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016-2017

ITA 6638/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Shell Information The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology International Bv, Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Vs. 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Apollo Mills Compound, Air India Building, Nariman Point, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 234B

…annot be reckoned as “royalty” is factually and legally correct and the same is upheld. 15. Apart from that now there are various decisions of Hon’ble High Court including that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd., reported in [2013] 39 Taxmann.com 88, wherein host of other decisions have been referred and relied upon. In the A.Y. 2008-09, the learned CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2013]345 ITR 494 and some other decisions of the Tribunal. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has taken note of th…

Sandvik Machining Solution Ab, (Formerly Known As) Sandvik Tolling Severige Ab), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It), Circle -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1319/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya

Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssessee is that the amount received by it from SAPL for allowing limited access to CAD/CAM is a consideration for copyrighted article and not use of a copyright. In this regard, it is observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 329 (Delhi) considered almost similar issue in which consideration was received by the assessee on grant of licence for use of software. The AO held that the software was licensed and not sold in as much as the copyright of the software remained with the assessee which simply allowed the use of copyright to the person making payment to it. In view of…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7283/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Cit (International Taxation) – 4(2)(1) M/S. Shell Information Technology V. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor International Bv Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O B.S.R. & Co. Llp. Mumbai – 400 021 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244A

…cannot be reckoned as “royalty” is factually and legally correct and the same is upheld. 15. Apart from that now there are various decisions of Hon’ble High Court including that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd., reported in [2013] 39 Taxmann.com 88, wherein host of other decisions have been referred and relied upon. In the A.Y. 2008-09, the learned CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2013]345 ITR 494 and some other decisions of the Tribunal. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has taken note of th…

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 7027/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledassault Systems Solidworks Corporation Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(2) V. Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnaryana Road Chennai – 600 017 Pan: Aafcs8787E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anantha Krishnan N Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Anantha Krishnan NFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…been decided in view of the latest law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ericsson AV (343 ITR 470) (Del.) On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, it came into the notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 (Del.) and in case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Since, the matter has also been considered by the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and decided this issue in favour of the assessee specifically for the A.Y.2002-03 in ITA No. 3095/Mum/2007 order dated 15th December 2009 an…

Trimble Solutions Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6481/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Sh. Anbu Selvam

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 27ISection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…tware would be its „business income‟ and cannot be regarded as „royalty‟ income under the provisions of India- Finland tax treaty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 329 (Del). In the said judgment the Hon‟ble High Court had observed that the consideration received by the assessee on grant of licences for use of software is not taxable as „royalty‟ within the meaning of Article 12(3) of P a g e | 16 ITA No.6481 & 6482/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Trimble Solutions (earlier known as ‘Tekla Corporation) the…