Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO

IMMARSAT GLOBAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

…he authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, having perused these classifications and having considered the facts before us, we are of the considered view that the payment does not fit int…

IMMARSAT GLOBAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…ITA No. 1031/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 25 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2017-18 Inmarsat Global Limited .……………………..………………Appellant Ernst & Yound LLP, 14th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai 400 028 [PAN: AAACI6098K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-2(2)(1) Mumbai ……………...………….………Respondent Appearances by: Aarati Sathe for the appellant Milind Chavan for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of pronouncing the or…

INMARSAT GLOBAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-2(1)92), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shree Manoj Kumar Aggarwalinmarsat Global Ltd., Vs. Dy. Cit(It)-2(1)(2) Ernst & Young Llp, R.No.1612, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Ruby-29, Air India Bldg, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Dadar(W), Mumbai – Mumbai 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci6098K Appellant .. Respondent

…he authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, having perused these classifications and having considered the facts before us, we are of the considered view that the payment does not fit int…

INMARSAT GLOBAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodinmarsat Global Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Tax (International Taxation) 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Circle 2(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Vs. 20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ITA No. 7025/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 1 Inmarsat Global Limited Vs. DCIT (I.T) Circle 2(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Inmarsat Global Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income C/o SRBC & Associates LLP, Tax (International Taxation) 14th Floor, The Ruby, Circle 2(2)(1), 17th Floor, Vs. 20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACI6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Ms. Aarati Sathe, A.Rs Respondent by: Shri Avan…

INTEC BILLING IRELAND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2 (2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2013-14

…to a media and sold has become goods like any other audio cassette or painting on canvas or a book. It is ceases to be transfer of intellectual property right. In fact, Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 366 (Bang) has also taken the view that in such a situation there is no acquisition of any right in software. Definition of „royalty‟ is given in section (9)(1) Explanation (2) of the Act and the definition of Royalty in Article 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA shows that definition of royalty under DTAA is more restrictive than what is provided in section (…

INTECH BILLING IRELAND,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

…to a media and sold has become goods like any other audio cassette or painting on canvas or a book. It is ceases to be transfer of intellectual property right. In fact, Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 366 (Bang) has also taken the view that in such a situation there is no acquisition of any 38 Intec Billing Ireland right in software. Definition of ‘royalty’ is given in section (9)(1) Explanation (2) of the Act and the definition of Royalty in Article 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA shows that definition of royalty under DTAA is more restrictive than what…

BHARAT BIJLEE LTD, MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (IT) 3(2), MUMBAI

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.

…he authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, having perused these classifications and having considered the facts before us, we are of the considered view that the payment does not fit int…

ALLCATEL US INTERNATIONAL MARKETING INC. ( NOW KNOWN AS ALCATEL LUCENT USA INC.),MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

…he authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, having perused these classifications and having considered the facts before us, we are of the considered view that the payment does not fit int…

DDIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. ANTWERP DIAMOND BANK NV, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…he authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, having perused these classifications and having considered the facts before us, we are of the considered view that the payment does not fit int…

SOLIDWORKS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…to a media and sold has become goods like any other audio cassette or painting on canvas or a book. It is ceases to be transfer of intellectual property right. In fact, Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 366 (Bang) has also taken the view that in such a situation there is no acquisition of any right in software. Definition of 'royalty' is given in section (9)(1) Explanation (2) of the Act and the definition of Royalty in Article 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA shows that definition of royalty under DTAA is more restrictive than what is provided in section (…