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 270ASection 115ASection 234CSection 9(1)(vi)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

copyrighted articlesection 9(1)(vi)fees for included servicesroyalty incomecomputer softwaresection 9(1)(vii)section 9(1)tax treatyfees for technical servicessection 195liable to taxnon-resident

Judgments citing DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals IT(IT)A No

ITA 1299/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

…espondent-supplier owns and what is transferred is only right to use copy of the software for the internal business as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dynamic Vertical Software India P. Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 222 (Delhi) relied upon by Sri Aravind IT(IT)ANos.1190, 1295/Bang/2014, 2845, 949, 950/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos.374, 466/Bang/2013, 68, 205, 1299/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A Nos. 69, 191/Bang/2014, 559, 881/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.387/Bang/2017 Page 29 of 331 Dattar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the cases in support of his co…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND 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 अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha Chouda…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “एल एल ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई एल एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक रिवश सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6219/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपी…

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor in Interest to Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Now vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

ITA/370/2018HC Delhi03 Apr 2018

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

Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…come Tax v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. 345 ITR 494, the assessee contends that the jurisdiction having changed, the views of the ITAT is not in consonance with the view of this Court. It relies upon the decision in Director of Income Tax v. Infrasoft Limited 264 CTR 329 (Del). This Court had considered the judgment in Samsung (supra) and distinguished it in Infrasoft (supra); the reasoning which persuaded the Court to hold that licence fee was not „royalty‟, was that the copyright in the software was not transferred, but merely allowed to be used, and it being a part of operative standard. That reasoning squ…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ITA No.247/Mum/2016 & ITA No.248/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2011-12) DCIT 2(3)(1) Vs. M/s. Western Outdoor R.No.552, 5th Floor Interactive Pvt. Ltd., 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Nanavati Mahalaya, Mumbai – 400 020 18, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACW0584A Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by Shri V. Vidhyadhar Assessee by Shri Shekhar Gupta Date of Hearing 03/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals…

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor in Interest to Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., No vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

ITA/61/2018HC Delhi12 Feb 2018

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

Section 206ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…come Tax Vs. Samsung Electrics 345 ITR 494, the assessee contends that the jurisdiction having changed, the views of the ITAT is not in consonance with the view of this Court. It relies upon the decision in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra Soft Limited, 264 CTR 329. This Court had considered the judgment in Samsung (supra) and distinguished it in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra Soft Limited ITA Nos.61/2018 & 62/2018 Page 2 of 3 (supra); the reasoning which persuaded the Court to hold that licence fee was not ‘royalty’, was that the copyright in the software was not transferred, but merel…

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor in Interest to Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., No vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

ITA/62/2018HC Delhi12 Feb 2018

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

Section 206ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…come Tax Vs. Samsung Electrics 345 ITR 494, the assessee contends that the jurisdiction having changed, the views of the ITAT is not in consonance with the view of this Court. It relies upon the decision in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra Soft Limited, 264 CTR 329. This Court had considered the judgment in Samsung (supra) and distinguished it in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infra Soft Limited ITA Nos.61/2018 & 62/2018 Page 2 of 3 (supra); the reasoning which persuaded the Court to hold that licence fee was not ‘royalty’, was that the copyright in the software was not transferred, but merel…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “एल ” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं रिवश सूद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.s/837/Mum/2007; 3431/Mum/2008; 3432/Mum/2008;3433/Mum/2008;3434/Mum/2008;3435/Mum/2008; 3436/Mum/ 2008; 3437/Mum/2008; 3440/Mum/2008; 3441/Mum/ 2008; 3442/Mum/ 2008; 3443/ Mum/ 2008;3444/Mum/2008; 4245/Mum/2008;4247/Mum/2008;4249/Mum/2008;4250/Mum/2008;4251/Mum/2008;42 52/Mum/2008;4253/Mum/2008;4261/Mum/2008;4278/Mum/2008;4279/Mum/2008; 4284/Mum/ 2008; ;4285/Mum/2008; 4286/Mum/2008;4287/M…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “एल ” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं रिवश सूद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.s/837/Mum/2007; 3431/Mum/2008; 3432/Mum/2008;3433/Mum/2008;3434/Mum/2008;3435/Mum/2008; 3436/Mum/ 2008; 3437/Mum/2008; 3440/Mum/2008; 3441/Mum/ 2008; 3442/Mum/ 2008; 3443/ Mum/ 2008;3444/Mum/2008; 4245/Mum/2008;4247/Mum/2008;4249/Mum/2008;4250/Mum/2008;4251/Mum/2008;42 52/Mum/2008;4253/Mum/2008;4261/Mum/2008;4278/Mum/2008;4279/Mum/2008; 4284/Mum/ 2008; ;4285/Mum/2008; 4286/Mum/2008;4287/M…

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)

…ssee in default u/s 201 / 201(1A) of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- Pr. CIT v.M. Tech India (P.) Ltd (381 ITR 31) (Delhi 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) Shi…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.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 and 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, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by assessee against order da…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Intec 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 Date of Hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (J…

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)

…does not accrue or arise in India and hence there being no liability to income-tax in India, there is 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 7…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and 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 Fl…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4486/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…this the reliance placed by the assessee on that decision . . is rejected. Further more, the assessee has also stated that issue IS squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of err versus infra soft Lid 220 Taxmann 273. On examination of the arguments of the assessee it is noted that in that particular case the issue before the Honb!c high court was that whether amount received by assessee, a non-resident company, for granting license to use its copyrighted software for Iicencces own business purpose only, could not be brought to tax as 'royalty' under arti…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4485/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…this the reliance placed by the assessee on that decision . . is rejected. Further more, the assessee has also stated that issue IS squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of err versus infra soft Lid 220 Taxmann 273. On examination of the arguments of the assessee it is noted that in that particular case the issue before the Honb!c high court was that whether amount received by assessee, a non-resident company, for granting license to use its copyrighted software for Iicencces own business purpose only, could not be brought to tax as 'royalty' under arti…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4484/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…this the reliance placed by the assessee on that decision . . is rejected. Further more, the assessee has also stated that issue IS squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of err versus infra soft Lid 220 Taxmann 273. On examination of the arguments of the assessee it is noted that in that particular case the issue before the Honb!c high court was that whether amount received by assessee, a non-resident company, for granting license to use its copyrighted software for Iicencces own business purpose only, could not be brought to tax as 'royalty' under arti…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4483/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…this the reliance placed by the assessee on that decision . . is rejected. Further more, the assessee has also stated that issue IS squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of err versus infra soft Lid 220 Taxmann 273. On examination of the arguments of the assessee it is noted that in that particular case the issue before the Honb!c high court was that whether amount received by assessee, a non-resident company, for granting license to use its copyrighted software for Iicencces own business purpose only, could not be brought to tax as 'royalty' under arti…