KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT v. Reliane Industries Ltd. (43 SOT 506)

Q: What is KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT v. Reliane Industries Ltd. authority for?

Payment for licensing computer software is not royalty if it is for a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself, especially when the definition of royalty under a DTAA is more restrictive than under the Income Tax Act.

Q: How many judgments cite KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT v. Reliane Industries Ltd.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT v. Reliane Industries Ltd. (43 SOT 506), spanning 2016 to 2022.

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kumar

Section 144C(13)Section 274

…s. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), Tata Consultancy Services State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)271 ITR 401 (SC), Dassault Systems KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT Vs. Reliane Industries Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 506 (Mumbai), ITAT. 8. On the receipt of the above draft assessment order, the appellant filed its objection before Dy. CIT (International Taxation) Circle, Pune,, hereinafter referred as DRP. The DRP considering the decision relied upon by the appellant held that consideration received towards software licence fees is taxable royalty 5 Tibco Softwa…

AMADEUS GLOBAL TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SA,SPAIN vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1494/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiamadeus Global Travel Vs. Adit, Distribution Sa Circle-1(1), (Now Known As Amadeus It International Taxation, Group Sa), New Delhi Salvador De Madariaga, E- 28027, Madrid, Spain Pan: Aafca9629P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 80HSection 9

…49 ITR(T) 73 (Mum)  Factset Research: 317 ITR 169 (AAR)  DDIT vs. Solid Works: (2012) 51 SOT 34 (Mum)  Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd.: 134 TTJ 342 (ITAT Mum)  DDIT v. Alcatel USA International: 43 SOT 31 (Mum) (URO)  DDIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd.: (2011) 43 SOT 506 (ITAT Mum)  Novel Inc. v DDIT [2011] 16 taxmann.com 186 (Mum.)  ADIT vs TII Team Telecom International Private Limited (2011) 140 TTJ (Mum) 649  ADIT vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2012] 19 ITR (Trib) 336 (Mum)  WNS North America Inc. vs ADIT (2012) 152 TTJ (Mum) 145  Channel Guide India Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 153 TTJ (Mum) 432  Allianz SE vs A…

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)

…sultancy Services v. State of AP 271 ITR 401(SC) for inference that it was a purchase of goods and followed the decision of the Special Bench in Motorola Inc. v. DCIT 95 ITD 269 (Del.) (SB). 6.6 The ITAT, Mumbai in cases of DDIT (IT) v. Reliance Infocom Ltd., 43 SOT 506(Mum) has dealt with the issue as to whether consideration paid to a US resident for licensing of computer software would be in nature of "royalty". After considering various clauses of agreement, Indian Copyright Act and other decisions including Special Bench decision in Motorola Inc. (supra) it held that payment was for a copyrighted article and…

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2834/CHNY/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

…ee has no right of copying has it has only right to use. Hence, it is to be considered as Revenue expenditure only as the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 50 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. in the case of Reliance Industries 43 SOT 506 and prayed for allowing the ground. 24.4 On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and vehemently opposed to the ground. 24.5 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision cited. In our opinion this is purchase of software which is…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2827/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

…ee has no right of copying has it has only right to use. Hence, it is to be considered as Revenue expenditure only as the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 50 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. in the case of Reliance Industries 43 SOT 506 and prayed for allowing the ground. 24.4 On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and vehemently opposed to the ground. 24.5 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision cited. In our opinion this is purchase of software which is…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2825/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

…ee has no right of copying has it has only right to use. Hence, it is to be considered as Revenue expenditure only as the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 50 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. in the case of Reliance Industries 43 SOT 506 and prayed for allowing the ground. 24.4 On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and vehemently opposed to the ground. 24.5 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision cited. In our opinion this is purchase of software which is…