← All Phrases

“royalty income”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)629 judgments

The decision most relied on for royalty income is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on royalty income

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Judgments citing royalty income

Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriiram Ltd (Earlier Known As Bioseed Research India Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4261/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth,[CIT] D. R
Section 143(2)Section 80I

Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IB(BA) of Rs.14,78,15,335/- made by the Assessing Officer on royalty income from hybrid cotton seeds as not developed directly by the assessee company. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case ... directed against deletion of the disallowance u/s 80IB(8A) of the Act of Rs. 14,78,15,335/- made by the AO on royalty income from Hybrid Cotton Seeds. 13. It is specific case of the revenue that hybrid seeds are not developed directly by the assessee company, therefore

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, allocated the head office expenses of Rs.9,05,520 (being 0.44% of the turnover) against royalty income of Rs.30,01,812 and computed the deduction under section 80- O to Rs. Nil (20% of Rs. 30,01,812, i.e. Rs.6

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, allocated the head office expenses of Rs.9,05,520 (being 0.44% of the turnover) against royalty income of Rs.30,01,812 and computed the deduction under section 80- O to Rs. Nil (20% of Rs. 30,01,812, i.e. Rs.6

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)

pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Penalty (DRP). 2. The common issue arising in both the appeals relates to taxability of royalty income received by the assessee on subscribers units from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) located outside India and royalty income on infrastructure equipments. Since the facts involved ... paid by 435,54,84,680/- OEMs outside India) 4. Royalty on Infrastructure equipments 5,36,96,200/- Total 441,51,15,880/- 4. Royalty income aggregating to Rs.59,35,000/- received from OEMs carrying on business in India through their Permanent Establishments (PEs) were offered to tax in India

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)

pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Penalty (DRP). 2. The common issue arising in both the appeals relates to taxability of royalty income received by the assessee on subscribers units from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) located outside India and royalty income on infrastructure equipments. Since the facts involved ... paid by 435,54,84,680/- OEMs outside India) 4. Royalty on Infrastructure equipments 5,36,96,200/- Total 441,51,15,880/- 4. Royalty income aggregating to Rs.59,35,000/- received from OEMs carrying on business in India through their Permanent Establishments (PEs) were offered to tax in India

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandip Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

income and the reimbursement would not have a reason, but for the charter agreement with BOC BV. Accordingly, the AO taxed these receipts as Royalty income of the Smit Singapore Pte. Ltd. ITA no.816/Mum./2023 assessee. The learned DRP, vide its directions, rejected the objections filed by the assessee

Marriott International Inc., Mumbai vs. Dy, CIT (International Tax) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1784/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1784/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2010-11) Marriott International Inc C/O.Marriott Hotels India Private Limited 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 099 Pan: Aaecm-8040-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C

orders of the Assessing Officer as well as that of CIT(A) reveal that the impugned sums have been held to be taxable as Royalty income. In fact, the CIT(A) has noted in para 5 of the impugned order that similar issues have been decided by the Tribunal

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Int.Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1766/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 263Section 44B

circumstances of the case, the Ld AO and Ld DRP grossly erred in treating the receipts from international traffic pertaining to voyage charter as Royalty income. 3.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld DRP erred in not appreciating that the appellant being a non- resident ... erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax an amount of INR 926,69,08,621 as royalty income taxable @ 10% on gross basis, instead of applying the provisions of section 44B of the Act to ascertain the taxability of the impugned receipts. 5. That

Country Inn & Suits by Raddison, Inn, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2) (1)International Taxation, Newdelhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2224/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

terms and conditions of the franchise/license agreement with Indian hotel owners, the assessees have earned following two types of income :- (i). Royalty income for extending license to use the brand name and trademark; (ii). Fee for providing centralised services to maintain uniform hospitality standard. Under the second category, following services ... Club Carlson (customer loyalty programme); (c). Reservation charges; (d). Third party reservations; (e). CHWIT/Technology fee; (f). Miscellaneous things 4. As far as royalty income received for license to use brand name/trademark, the assessees have offered such income to tax in India. However, in respect of fee received from provision

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2223/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

terms and conditions of the franchise/license agreement with Indian hotel owners, the assessees have earned following two types of income :- (i). Royalty income for extending license to use the brand name and trademark; (ii). Fee for providing centralised services to maintain uniform hospitality standard. Under the second category, following services ... Club Carlson (customer loyalty programme); (c). Reservation charges; (d). Third party reservations; (e). CHWIT/Technology fee; (f). Miscellaneous things 4. As far as royalty income received for license to use brand name/trademark, the assessees have offered such income to tax in India. However, in respect of fee received from provision

Radisson Hotel International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

terms and conditions of the franchise/license agreement with Indian hotel owners, the assessees have earned following two types of income :- (i). Royalty income for extending license to use the brand name and trademark; (ii). Fee for providing centralised services to maintain uniform hospitality standard. Under the second category, following services ... Club Carlson (customer loyalty programme); (c). Reservation charges; (d). Third party reservations; (e). CHWIT/Technology fee; (f). Miscellaneous things 4. As far as royalty income received for license to use brand name/trademark, the assessees have offered such income to tax in India. However, in respect of fee received from provision

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

assessee. Be that as it may, in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income offering to tax the royalty income received from Indian subsidiary towards transfer of technical know-how, skill etc. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that, in addition ... royalty income, the assessee has also received certain fees/charges towards provision of IT support and SAP services under IT and SAP service agreement entered with the Indian subsidiary. However, the receipts from the Indian subsidiary under the IT and SAP service agreement have not been offered

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1092/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

assessee. Be that as it may, in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income offering to tax the royalty income received from Indian subsidiary towards transfer of technical know-how, skill etc. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that, in addition ... royalty income, the assessee has also received certain fees/charges towards provision of IT support and SAP services under IT and SAP service agreement entered with the Indian subsidiary. However, the receipts from the Indian subsidiary under the IT and SAP service agreement have not been offered

ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi vs. Godaddy.Com Llc, Usa

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2013-14 and

ITA 9406/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Melhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the issue of royalty income in the hands of entity providing service in registration of domain name is still not settled even though the Supreme Court in the case ... settled issue. It is a fact that Hon'ble APEX court has held domain name as trade mark. However, the issue of royalty income in the hands of entity providing service in registration of domain name is still not settled. Accordingly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has admitted the substantial

ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi vs. Godaddy.Com Llc, Usa

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2013-14 and

ITA 9405/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Melhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the issue of royalty income in the hands of entity providing service in registration of domain name is still not settled even though the Supreme Court in the case ... settled issue. It is a fact that Hon'ble APEX court has held domain name as trade mark. However, the issue of royalty income in the hands of entity providing service in registration of domain name is still not settled. Accordingly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has admitted the substantial

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7846/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

income from royalty. 9. Briefly the facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee declared royalty income from the Bharuch Jamnagar Project amounting to Rs.1,48,23,267/- and offered it to tax by applying the rate of 10% on gross basis ... accept assessee’s claim. He observed that in assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had held that such royalty income is effectively connected to the fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such income has to be taxed on net basis. Accordingly, following

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1133/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

income from royalty. 9. Briefly the facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee declared royalty income from the Bharuch Jamnagar Project amounting to Rs.1,48,23,267/- and offered it to tax by applying the rate of 10% on gross basis ... accept assessee’s claim. He observed that in assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had held that such royalty income is effectively connected to the fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such income has to be taxed on net basis. Accordingly, following

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5223/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

income from royalty. 9. Briefly the facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee declared royalty income from the Bharuch Jamnagar Project amounting to Rs.1,48,23,267/- and offered it to tax by applying the rate of 10% on gross basis ... accept assessee’s claim. He observed that in assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had held that such royalty income is effectively connected to the fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such income has to be taxed on net basis. Accordingly, following

Pjsc Stroytransagaz, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5299/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

income from royalty. 9. Briefly the facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee declared royalty income from the Bharuch Jamnagar Project amounting to Rs.1,48,23,267/- and offered it to tax by applying the rate of 10% on gross basis ... accept assessee’s claim. He observed that in assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had held that such royalty income is effectively connected to the fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such income has to be taxed on net basis. Accordingly, following

Indian Institute of Banking and Finance ( Formerly Known As the Indian Institute of Bankers), Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 875/MUM/2021[2019-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2019-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 2(15)

From the perusal of financials of the assessee, forming part of the paper book, we find that during the year assessee earned a Royalty income of Rs.2,04,98,322 on publications. As per the assessee, upto the financial year 2003-04, the assessee was itself publishing its courseware which