What is Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Payment for software is not considered a payment for copyright per se, and therefore is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright.

How many judgments cite Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (94 ITD 91), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (94 ITD 91)

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,NETHERLANDS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTL. TAX. 2(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Inmarsat Solutions B. V. 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…

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 731/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1) (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 2(1)(1)-DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 1717/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe, &

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

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

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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

ITA 7485/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

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

ITA 7025/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

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)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 9(1)(vi)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…n following decisions placed at Page 583 to 657 of case law compilation held that software payments cannot he treated as 'royalty'.  Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd v ITO [2005] 92 ITD 366 (Bangalore) dt.31.10.2003  Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v ITO [2005] 94 ITD 91 (Bang) dt. 18.2.2005  Sonata Software Ltd v ITO [2006] 6 SOT 700 (Bang) dt. 28.4.2005  Mphasis BFL Ltd v ITO [2006] 9 SOT 756 (Bang) dt. 20.1.2006  Sonata Information Technology Ltd v Ad. CIT [2006] 103 17'D 324 (Bang) dt.31.1.2006 ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 19  Hewlett Packard (India) (P) Ltd v ITO [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) dt. 31.12.2006 It i…

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)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…

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

ITA 7299/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Jasbir Chouhan-CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal-DR

Section 133Section 254(1)

…and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The 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 bef…