Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

94 ITD 91Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#4725 most cited

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.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT · 94 ITD 91 · ITAT · 2005 · software payment · copyright · payment for copyright · section 9(1)(vi) · international taxation · copyrighted article

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 Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd., Raisen

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…eleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order for A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2002-03 dtd. 09.04.2010 is passed befor…

M/S. Andritz Hydro Private Limited (Earlier Known As Va Tech Hydro India Private Limited), Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…eleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders of the TPO/ DRP submitted that ITAT order for A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2002-03 dtd. 09.04.2010 is passed befor…

DDIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Antwerp Diamond Bank Nv, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5498/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 150Section 40Section 9Section 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…

At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. DCIT-Range-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…. M/s AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 tax at source. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the following decisions:- 251 ITR 53 (Mad/.) – Skycell Communications Ltd. – vs.- DCIT; 95 ITD 269 (Del-SB) – Motorola Income. –vs.- DCIT,Non-resident Circle; 94 ITD 91 (Bang.)-Samsusng Electronics Co. Ltd.-vs.- ITO (TDS). 2.3 The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders f the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee has utilized the services being provided by various service provider companies. The assessee made the payments for such services utilized by it. Therefore,…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S at & S India Pvt Ltd, Karnataka

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…. M/s AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 tax at source. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the following decisions:- 251 ITR 53 (Mad/.) – Skycell Communications Ltd. – vs.- DCIT; 95 ITD 269 (Del-SB) – Motorola Income. –vs.- DCIT,Non-resident Circle; 94 ITD 91 (Bang.)-Samsusng Electronics Co. Ltd.-vs.- ITO (TDS). 2.3 The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders f the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee has utilized the services being provided by various service provider companies. The assessee made the payments for such services utilized by it. Therefore,…