Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

95 ITD 269High Court2005#423 most cited

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

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

213

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT · 95 ITD 269 · Special Bench Delhi Tribunal · Permanent Establishment onus · Dependent Agent PE burden of proof · Arm's length conditions · Title passing outside India · Source of income taxability · Section 9(1) business connection · Tax treaty interpretation · Sale of equipment

Also reported as

147 Taxmann 39

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 270ASection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 28(v)

Issues it is cited on

agency pedependent agent pefixed place pecopyrighted articlesection 9(1)(vi)section 90(2)royalty incomepermanent establishmenttax treatycomputer softwarebusiness connectionsection 9(1)

Judgments citing Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

International Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. ACIT (It), Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7117/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…the lower authorities that the transactions between the principal and agent were done in arm‟s length conditions. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal relying on the order of the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. Vs. Dy. CIT(2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), had held, that the onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate that a PE of the foreign enterprise exists in India. In its aforesaid order it was observed by the Tribunal, that in the case before them, the onus was even greater inasmuch the very foundation of DAPE did rest on a negative finding with respect to the wholly dependent or almost…

International Air Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (International Taxation) Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7072/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…the lower authorities that the transactions between the principal and agent were done in arm‟s length conditions. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal relying on the order of the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. Vs. Dy. CIT(2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), had held, that the onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate that a PE of the foreign enterprise exists in India. In its aforesaid order it was observed by the Tribunal, that in the case before them, the onus was even greater inasmuch the very foundation of DAPE did rest on a negative finding with respect to the wholly dependent or almost…

Internatinal Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7416/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…the lower authorities that the transactions between the principal and agent were done in arm‟s length conditions. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal relying on the order of the „Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. Vs. Dy. CIT(2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), had held, that the onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate that a PE of the foreign enterprise exists in India. In its aforesaid order it was observed by the Tribunal, that in the case before them, the onus was even greater inasmuch the very foundation of DAPE did rest on a negative finding with respect to the wholly dependent or almost…

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre Minto Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3742/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshqualcomm Incorporated, Vs. Dcit, 5775, Morehouse Drive, Circle-3(1), San Diego, California, International Taxation, Usa, 92121, Usa New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1484H Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Ms. Jasmin Amalsadavala, Adv Shri Zoheb Balwani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…d of merit in the present case as the agreement itself is very specific as to when the title and the risk were to pass. 153A As already stated under identical facts in the case of Ericsson A.B (supra) the Delhi Special Bench in Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Del.)(SB) held that the title of the GSM equipment passed outside India. The order of the Delhi Special Bench decision in the case of Ericsson (supra) was latter affirmed by the Delhi High Court in Ericsson A.B. (supra). Regarding the applicability of Ericsson and Nokia ruling, we are unable to appreciate the argument that the propositions in the…

Denso International Asia Co., Ltd., Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition quashed

ITA 1985/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; and Ms Sumisha Murgai &For Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ntered into by India (with the country in which the other party is a resident), to the extent it is more beneficial to the taxpayer. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of special bench of Delhi Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc. vs. DCIT: [2005] 95 ITD 269 (DELHI)(SB), wherein the tribunal inter alia observed that,"DTAA is only an alternate tax regime and not an exemption regime" and, therefore, "the burden is first on the Revenue to show that the assessee has a taxable income under the DTAA, and then the burden is on the assessee to show that its income is exempt under DTAA". 5. Ld. Counsel has str…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ag, Mumbai

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

…wants it to be considered as falling under Article 13, being the royalty. We have to decide whether the sum of Rs.5.29 crores is to be considered as "Business profits" or "royalty. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi)(SB) has considered this aspect and held that "the payment made to the assessee for use of software in the equipment did not amount to royalty either under the Income- tax Act or the DTAA." The facts involved in the instant case are akin to those considered by the Special Bench in the afore-noted case. The Learned Department Representative…

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

…wants it to be considered as falling under Article 13, being the royalty. We have to decide whether the sum of Rs.5.29 crores is to be considered as "Business profits" or "royalty. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi)(SB) has considered this aspect and held that "the payment made to the assessee for use of software in the equipment did not amount to royalty either under the Income- tax Act or the DTAA." The facts involved in the instant case are akin to those considered by the Special Bench in the afore-noted case. The Learned Department Representative…

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250

…failed to discharge the burden casted on it to prove that the twin conditions provided in Article 5(4)(i) of the DTAA are satisfied in the facts of the present case. As held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT: [2005] 95 ITD 269 that DTAA is only an alternative tax regime and not an exemption regime and therefore, the burden is first on the Revenue to show that the assessee had a taxable income under the DTAA, and then the burden is on the assessee to show that its income is exempt under DTAA. Similarly, was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Right Fl…

DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1351/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250

…failed to discharge the burden casted on it to prove that the twin conditions provided in Article 5(4)(i) of the DTAA are satisfied in the facts of the present case. As held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT: [2005] 95 ITD 269 that DTAA is only an alternative tax regime and not an exemption regime and therefore, the burden is first on the Revenue to show that the assessee had a taxable income under the DTAA, and then the burden is on the assessee to show that its income is exempt under DTAA. Similarly, was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Right Fl…

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)

…for software is for a copyrighted article and not copyright per se, 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, hav…

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)

…for software is for a copyrighted article and not copyright per se, 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, hav…

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

…se of Airline Rotables Ltd. UK v. Joint Director of Income-tax 40 DTR 226 and after analysis of earlier decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. Asstt. DIT [2007] 104 ITD 34(Delhi) and Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) (SB), has observed that, "There are three criterions embedded in this definition - physical criterion i.e., existence of physical location, subjective criterion, i.e., right to use that place, functionality criterion, i.e., carrying out of business though that place. It is only when these three conditions are satisfied, a PE under the basi…

DDIT (It)-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

…se of Airline Rotables Ltd. UK v. Joint Director of Income-tax 40 DTR 226 and after analysis of earlier decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. Asstt. DIT [2007] 104 ITD 34(Delhi) and Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) (SB), has observed that, "There are three criterions embedded in this definition - physical criterion i.e., existence of physical location, subjective criterion, i.e., right to use that place, functionality criterion, i.e., carrying out of business though that place. It is only when these three conditions are satisfied, a PE under the basi…

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)

…yrighted article and not I.T.A. No. 1717/Del/2022 copyright per se, 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, hav…

Utstarcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 187/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…attributed to the PE, 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.998 & 1858/Del/2009 & 187/Del/2014 & learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the PE in accordance with judgment of the Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi ITAT) (SB), i.e., on the basis of percentage of net profit on global service applied to Indian sales. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned first appellate authority, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee had enter…

Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 998/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…attributed to the PE, 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.998 & 1858/Del/2009 & 187/Del/2014 & learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the PE in accordance with judgment of the Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi ITAT) (SB), i.e., on the basis of percentage of net profit on global service applied to Indian sales. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned first appellate authority, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee had enter…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1858/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…attributed to the PE, 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.998 & 1858/Del/2009 & 187/Del/2014 & learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the PE in accordance with judgment of the Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT [2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi ITAT) (SB), i.e., on the basis of percentage of net profit on global service applied to Indian sales. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned first appellate authority, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee had enter…

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 7894/Del/2017 & 7559/Del/2018 And SA Nos. 309 & 304/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Versus Qualcomm Incorporated USA, DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), SRBC & Associates LLP, Oval New Delhi Offisce, 18, Ilabs Centre, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. PAN: AAACQ1484H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel, Sh. Nishant Thakkar, Advocate & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR) Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.…

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 7894/Del/2017 & 7559/Del/2018 And SA Nos. 309 & 304/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Versus Qualcomm Incorporated USA, DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), SRBC & Associates LLP, Oval New Delhi Offisce, 18, Ilabs Centre, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. PAN: AAACQ1484H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel, Sh. Nishant Thakkar, Advocate & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR) Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.…

Altos It Solutions and Services Inc., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6841/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos It Solutions & Services Inc V. Dcit (It)-1(1)(2) C/O. Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Scindia House, Room No. 117 Plant No. 5, Godrej & Boyce Mfg., Co. Ltd. Mumbai-400038 Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aajca8823F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Ms. Chandani Shah Kinjal Patel & Yogesh Malpani Department Represented By : Shri Richa Gulati

Section 144C(5)

…9/M/2008) (Mum.) DIT vs. Ericsson AB [2012] (343 ITR 470) (Del.) DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [TS-700-HC-2012 (Del.)] Infrasoft Ltd. Vs. ADIT [2009] (28 SOT 179) (Del.) Sonata Information Technologies Ltd [2006] (103 ITD 324) (Bang.) Motorola Inc. v. DCIT [2005] (95 ITD 269) (Del.) (SB) Dassault Systems K.K., In Re [2010] (229 CTR 105) (AAR) 3.4.9 As per the assessee, the principle enunciated in the above decisions is that the payment for right to use the software was not for any copyright in the software but only acquisition of the copyrighted article and the same, therefore, could not be considered as Royalty withi…