Kolkata), 9. Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…(ITAT-Bengaluru)], vii. Inception Business Services v. ITO, [ITA 2674/Chny/2016, decision dated 18.02.2019 (ITAT-Chennai)], viii. ITO v. Right Florists Pvt. Ltd., (2013) SCC OnLine ITAT 6870 (ITAT - Koikata), ix. Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd. v, ITO, (2012) 54 SOT 78 (ITAT - Mumbai), x. Yahoo India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2011) 140 TTJ 195 (ITAT-Mumbai). 6. The learned A.R. submitted that if the issue is decided on merits the other grounds relating to reopening of assessment, etc. may be left open. 7. The learned D.R., on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the TPO and DRP. The learned D.R. has filed…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…y as per the Article 12 of the India Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 11. Erred in not following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd (140 TTJ (Mumbai) 195) and Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai) on similar facts by stating that the facts and issues are completely different and at no stage the Mumbai Tribunal consider what exactly is the AdWords Program. nor did it have occasion to examine the right to use trademark or other IP rights. 12. Erred in not following the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Offic…

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…y as per the Article 12 of the India Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 11. Erred in not following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd (140 TTJ (Mumbai) 195) and Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai) on similar facts by stating that the facts and issues are completely different and at no stage the Mumbai Tribunal consider what exactly is the AdWords Program. nor did it have occasion to examine the right to use trademark or other IP rights. 12. Erred in not following the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Offic…

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…y as per the Article 12 of the India Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 11. Erred in not following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd (140 TTJ (Mumbai) 195) and Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai) on similar facts by stating that the facts and issues are completely different and at no stage the Mumbai Tribunal consider what exactly is the AdWords Program. nor did it have occasion to examine the right to use trademark or other IP rights. 12. Erred in not following the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Offic…

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…y as per the Article 12 of the India Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 11. Erred in not following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd (140 TTJ (Mumbai) 195) and Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai) on similar facts by stating that the facts and issues are completely different and at no stage the Mumbai Tribunal consider what exactly is the AdWords Program. nor did it have occasion to examine the right to use trademark or other IP rights. 12. Erred in not following the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Offic…

GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…y as per the Article 12 of the India Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 11. Erred in not following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd (140 TTJ (Mumbai) 195) and Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai) on similar facts by stating that the facts and issues are completely different and at no stage the Mumbai Tribunal consider what exactly is the AdWords Program. nor did it have occasion to examine the right to use trademark or other IP rights. 12. Erred in not following the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Offic…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…1 (ITAT – Bengaluru)], 7. Inception Business Services v. ITO, [ITA 2674/Chny/2016, decision dated 18.02.2019 (ITAT – Chennai)], 8. ITO v. Right Florists Pvt. Ltd., (2013) SCC OnLine ITAT 6870 (ITAT – Kolkata), 9. Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, (2012) 54 SOT 78 (ITAT – Mumbai), 10. Yahoo India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2011) 140 TTJ 195 (ITAT – Mumbai). 9. It was submitted that in the above cases, the Tribunal had held that for purchase of online advertisement space cannot be characterized as “royalty” and hence, the same are not chargeable to tax in India, in the absence of PE of the non-resident in India. Fu…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…1 (ITAT – Bengaluru)], 7. Inception Business Services v. ITO, [ITA 2674/Chny/2016, decision dated 18.02.2019 (ITAT – Chennai)], 8. ITO v. Right Florists Pvt. Ltd., (2013) SCC OnLine ITAT 6870 (ITAT – Kolkata), 9. Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, (2012) 54 SOT 78 (ITAT – Mumbai), 10. Yahoo India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2011) 140 TTJ 195 (ITAT – Mumbai). 9. It was submitted that in the above cases, the Tribunal had held that for purchase of online advertisement space cannot be characterized as “royalty” and hence, the same are not chargeable to tax in India, in the absence of PE of the non-resident in India. Fu…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…1 (ITAT – Bengaluru)], 7. Inception Business Services v. ITO, [ITA 2674/Chny/2016, decision dated 18.02.2019 (ITAT – Chennai)], 8. ITO v. Right Florists Pvt. Ltd., (2013) SCC OnLine ITAT 6870 (ITAT – Kolkata), 9. Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, (2012) 54 SOT 78 (ITAT – Mumbai), 10. Yahoo India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2011) 140 TTJ 195 (ITAT – Mumbai). 9. It was submitted that in the above cases, the Tribunal had held that for purchase of online advertisement space cannot be characterized as “royalty” and hence, the same are not chargeable to tax in India, in the absence of PE of the non-resident in India. Fu…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…1 (ITAT – Bengaluru)], 7. Inception Business Services v. ITO, [ITA 2674/Chny/2016, decision dated 18.02.2019 (ITAT – Chennai)], 8. ITO v. Right Florists Pvt. Ltd., (2013) SCC OnLine ITAT 6870 (ITAT – Kolkata), 9. Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, (2012) 54 SOT 78 (ITAT – Mumbai), 10. Yahoo India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2011) 140 TTJ 195 (ITAT – Mumbai). 9. It was submitted that in the above cases, the Tribunal had held that for purchase of online advertisement space cannot be characterized as “royalty” and hence, the same are not chargeable to tax in India, in the absence of PE of the non-resident in India. Fu…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

…y' as per the Article 12 of the India Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 11. Erred in not following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd (140 TTJ (Mumbai) 195) and Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai) on similar facts by stating that the facts and issues are completely different and at no stage the Mumbai Tribunal consider what exactly is the AdWords Program, nor did it have occasion to examine the right to use trademark or other IP rights. 12. Erred in not following the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Office…