PCIT v. M. Tech India P. Ltd.

381 ITR 31High Court2016#4515 most cited

What is PCIT v. M. Tech India P. Ltd. authority for?

Payments for software as a product are treated as purchases, not royalties for the use or right to use software. This distinction is important for determining tax implications under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. M. Tech India P. Ltd. · royalty · software · DTAA · Article 12(3) · purchase of software · right to use software · India-US DTAA · payments for software

Judgments citing PCIT v. M. Tech India P. Ltd.

M/S. Tata Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha ChoudaryFor Respondent: S/Shri Vivek Aggarwal and Mukesh Jha
Section 115ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…al with the amendment to section but otherwise holds it as royalty. He referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. reported in 220 taxman 273 (Del) and PCIT Vs. M. Technical Know- how India P. Ltd. reported in (2016) 381 ITR 31 (Del), which have held that when purchasing software it is not royalty. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Pune Bench of Tribunal in DDIT Vs. iGATE Computer Systems Ltd. in ITA Nos.1172 to 1174/PN/2013, relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, order dated 10.04.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee f…

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 837/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…that the facts of the case of Synopsis(supra)were totally different from the facts of the present case.Referring to the case of Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Ptv Ltd.(supra).the AR stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M Tech India (P.) Ltd. (381 ITR 31) had considered the decision of the AAR in Citrix Systems Asia and had held that payment made for purchase of software as a product would be treated as a payment for purchase of software rather than payment for use or right to use software. About Millenium IT Software (338 ITR 391)and IMT Labs (India) (P.) Ltd.the AR submitted that both the AARs…

The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Communicatioins Ltd. ( Formerly Known As M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd), Navi Mumbai

ITA 4877/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…that the facts of the case of Synopsis(supra)were totally different from the facts of the present case.Referring to the case of Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Ptv Ltd.(supra).the AR stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M Tech India (P.) Ltd. (381 ITR 31) had considered the decision of the AAR in Citrix Systems Asia and had held that payment made for purchase of software as a product would be treated as a payment for purchase of software rather than payment for use or right to use software. About Millenium IT Software (338 ITR 391)and IMT Labs (India) (P.) Ltd.the AR submitted that both the AARs…

Pidilite Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 2(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2174/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 191Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…re are not in the nature of technical services and, therefore, the AO was incorrect in treating the asssessee as an assessee in default u/s 201 / 201(1A) of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- Pr. CIT v.M. Tech India (P.) Ltd (381 ITR 31) (Delhi HC) (para 12-13) CIT v. Vinzas Solutions India (P.) Ltd. (77 taxmann.com 279) DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. (264 CTR 329) (Delhi HC) (para 97 to 100) CIT v. Halliburton Export Inc. (ITA No. 36372016) (Delhi HC) (follows Infrasoft- para 5-9) DIT v. Ericsson A.B. (343 ITR 470) (Delhi HC) Galatea Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 749/Mum./2015) (Mum.) DDI…

Isys Softech Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 81/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena
Section 10ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…n cannot be held as royalty. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:- 3 M/s Isys Softech Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Jaipur (i) Tata Consultancy Services Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 271 ITR 401. (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31. (iii) Wipro Ltd. Vs Dy. DCIT 382ITR 179 (Karn) . He has also relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal on the point that the payment made to the foreign party for purchase of software for internal use cannot be said to be considered for use or right to use and therefore will not fall in the ambit of the definition of royalty as provided I…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7513/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…placed reliance of the following judgments:- i. Shinhan Bank(2016) 76 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai ITAT) (dt. July 04,2016 at pg 4; para 8 ii. Vinzas Solutions India(P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 279 ( Madras)- at pg 3; para 7 iii. M tech India (P.) Limited [2016] 381 ITR 31 (Delhi) (dt. January 19,2016) at pg 37-38; para 12-14 iv. Ericsson AB [2012] 343 ITR 470 (Delhi) – at pg 501; para 59 v. Sonata Information Techonology Ltd. v. ACIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bangalore ITAT) – at pg 9; para 6 vi. Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt Ltd[2013] 23 ITR (T) 447 (Mumbai ITAT) – at page 10; para 35 vii. Motorola Inc. [2005] 95 ITD 26…