← All Phrases

“computer software”

Chapter III - Incomes Not IncludedSection 10BSection 10B Explanation 2 / Section 80HHF951 judgments

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

Leading authorities on computer software

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.

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.

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd.
212 Taxmann 454 · 2013 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT
111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT
127
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on computer software, including software licenses, at the rate of 60%.

Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. v. DDIT
11 SOT 578 · 2007 · ITAT
99
citing judgments

Payments for data processing services using a mainframe computer and specialized software are not taxable as fees for the use of equipment if the Indian entity lacks independent rights or physical access to use the computer or software.

Judgments citing computer software

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos.201 To 233/Mum/2021, : A.Ys : 2018-19 & 4800 To 4804/Mum/2019 & 2019-20 4810 To 4814/Mum/2019 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Vs. Deputy Commissioner One International Center, Of Income Tax, (It) - Tower 3, 27Th - 32Nd Floor, 2(1)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400021 Elphinstone Road, (W) Mumbai 400013 [Pan: Aacfd4815A] Ita Nos. 4744, 4775 To : A.Y : 2018-19 4782/Mum/2019 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Vs. Deputy Commissioner India Llp, Of Income Tax, (It) - Indiabulls Finance Centre 2(1)(2) Tower 3, 27Th-32Nd Floor, Mumbai 400021 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, (W) Mumbai 400013 [Pan: Aalfd7157J]

For Appellant: Shri P.J PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 195

background of the case submitted that the amounts in question cannot be regarded as payment for the use of copyright of literary work (computer software) as held by the Assessing Officer. In fact, it is purely for providing common policies, guidance relating to brand, communications and other aspects and collaboration ... Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP & Anr. ITA Nos. 201 to 233/Mum/2021, 4800 to 4804, 4810 to 4814, 4744, 4775 to 4782/Mum/2019 copyright in computer software or any literary work as no right to use copyright is given by Holdings to the appellants. He further pointed out that before the Assessing Officer

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4744/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos.201 To 233/Mum/2021, : A.Ys : 2018-19 & 4800 To 4804/Mum/2019 & 2019-20 4810 To 4814/Mum/2019 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Vs. Deputy Commissioner One International Center, Of Income Tax, (It) - Tower 3, 27Th - 32Nd Floor, 2(1)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400021 Elphinstone Road, (W) Mumbai 400013 [Pan: Aacfd4815A] Ita Nos. 4744, 4775 To : A.Y : 2018-19 4782/Mum/2019 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Vs. Deputy Commissioner India Llp, Of Income Tax, (It) - Indiabulls Finance Centre 2(1)(2) Tower 3, 27Th-32Nd Floor, Mumbai 400021 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, (W) Mumbai 400013 [Pan: Aalfd7157J]

For Appellant: Shri P.J PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 195

background of the case submitted that the amounts in question cannot be regarded as payment for the use of copyright of literary work (computer software) as held by the Assessing Officer. In fact, it is purely for providing common policies, guidance relating to brand, communications and other aspects and collaboration ... Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP & Anr. ITA Nos. 201 to 233/Mum/2021, 4800 to 4804, 4810 to 4814, 4744, 4775 to 4782/Mum/2019 copyright in computer software or any literary work as no right to use copyright is given by Holdings to the appellants. He further pointed out that before the Assessing Officer

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

288/Bang/2021 development activities on its account that leads to development of non-routine intangibles. SanDisk India uses computer software to carry out its business activities. Tangible Assets SanDisk India employs necessary tangible assets required in respect of the above mentioned functions. Page 19 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 288/Bang/2021

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

passed by the AO in which, inter alia, the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. The AO also proposed to restrict the depreciation claimed on computer software at 25% as opposed to 60% claimed by the assessee and proposed to disallow the provision for warranty in excess of the utilization ... TNMM becomes academic and hence not decided. 40. Corporate tax issues arising in the appeal: Ground No. 11 re. restriction of depreciation claimed on computer software: In this ground, the assessee is challenging the action of the Revenue in restricting the depreciation claimed on computer software at 25% instead

Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1151/BANG/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2002-03 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 029. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas V Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Dated 3/11/2020 Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.392/2011. Hon’Ble High Court Admitted The Following Question Of Law Vide Order Dated 28/03/2012: “(I) Whether The Tribunal Was Correct In Holding That Whether The Appellate Authority Were Correct In Holding That Maintenance Of Separate Accounts For Stp Units & Non Stp Units Was Only Directory & Not Mandatory In Accordance With Rbi Conditions, Government Notification & Income Tax Act? (Ii) Whether The Appellate Authority Were Correct In Holding That Payments Made To Sub Contractors Who Have Separately Exported & Have Been Issued Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate & Have Also Claimed 10A Deduction Will Also Be Entitled To Double Deduction Under Section 10A Of The Act In Hands Of The Assessee?

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 10A

tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses like freight, telephone charges and insurance attributable to the delivery of articles or things on computer software outside India reduced from export turnover should be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act? (iv) Whether the tribunal