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

92 ITD 366Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#5568 most cited

What is Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Payments for the use of or the right to use copyright are covered by Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and are to be considered as income accruing or arising in India.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT · Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO · copyright payment · section 9(1)(vi) · income deemed to accrue or arise in India · royalty · taxability of copyright payments

Issues it is cited on

section 9(2)copyrighted articlesection 90(2)section 9(1)(vi)computer softwaresection 40(a)(i)tax treatypermanent establishmentsection 90section 9(1)interest under section 234asection 40(a)

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7790/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 (…