← All Phrases

“software payments”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)38 judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

disallowances made under Section 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, the allowability of set-off of losses, the treatment of software payments as royalty or fees for technical services, depreciation on software, taxability of unrealized gains, and the initiation of penalty proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

income.", "held": "The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned and requires specific satisfaction from the AO. For software payments, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, stating that payments for 'make available' clauses in DTAAs are not taxable and that routine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2) BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. U L INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

Page 14 of 15 ITA no 29 of the 2024(Departmental Appeal) 14. The solitary issue of this appeal is regarding the taxability of software payments paid by the appellant to UL Inc. The assessing officer was of the view that the payments made by the assessee towards reimbursement

M/S. UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1136/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

Page 14 of 15 ITA no 29 of the 2024(Departmental Appeal) 14. The solitary issue of this appeal is regarding the taxability of software payments paid by the appellant to UL Inc. The assessing officer was of the view that the payments made by the assessee towards reimbursement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2319/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

service charges of Rs.32.64 Crores to a foreign entity i.e., Saipem, Italy but did not deduct tax at source on the ground that such software payments do not require withholding tax u/s 195. It was submitted that the relevant agreement provide for limited right to use copyrighted article and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2264/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

service charges of Rs.32.64 Crores to a foreign entity i.e., Saipem, Italy but did not deduct tax at source on the ground that such software payments do not require withholding tax u/s 195. It was submitted that the relevant agreement provide for limited right to use copyrighted article and therefore

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

other respects Article 7 and the Commentary thereon could be of assistance for the interpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether computer software payments should be classified as commercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties within Article 12. 4. Even if Articles

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

other respects Article 7 and the\nCommentary thereon could be of assistance for the\ninterpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether\ncomputer software payments should be classified as\ncommercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties\nwithin Article 12.\n4. Even if Articles

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2413/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

other respects Article 7 and the Commentary thereon could be of assistance for the interpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether computer software payments should be classified as commercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties within Article 12. 4. Even if Articles

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2411/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

other respects Article 7 and the Commentary thereon could be of assistance for the interpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether computer software payments should be classified as commercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties within Article 12. 4. Even if Articles

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 2277/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

other respects Article 7 and the Commentary thereon could be of assistance for the interpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether computer software payments should be classified as commercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties within Article 12. 4. Even if Articles

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2274/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

other respects Article 7 and the Commentary thereon could be of assistance for the interpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether computer software payments should be classified as commercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties within Article 12. 4. Even if Articles

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 2273/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

other respects Article 7 and the Commentary thereon could be of assistance for the interpretation of Article 14, e.g. in determining whether computer software payments should be classified as commercial income within Article 7 or 14 or as royalties within Article 12. 4. Even if Articles

MIXPANEL INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 2(2)(1) INT.TAXATION., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1996/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

this case as facts of assessee and one relied upon are different. AO observed that the said ruling covered the following categories of software payments;  Sales of software directly to an end-user by a non-resident  Sales of software by a non-resident to Indian distributors for resale ... implement the software applications into customer's website. Therefore, assessee's case does not fall in any of the above four categories of software payments. 4. The assessee before DRP has raised objections to draft assessment submitting that the AO has erroneously captured the facts from the extracts

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

consultants for arranging finance for the company in relation to various non-eligible projects or expenses incurred at corporate level viz., Audit fees, software payments etc. • Legal & Professional Charges (Retainership) includes retainership charges paid to various professionals who were involved in general litigation of the company for protecting its title

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra). The Supreme Court grouped the various appeals on the aspect of royalty issue on software payments into four categories as under:- Category 1: Computer software purchased by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign non-resident supplier/manufacturer. Category 2: Purchase

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"A\" BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENAGLURU

ITA 192/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"A\" BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra). The Supreme Court grouped the various appeals on the aspect of royalty issue on software payments into four categories as under:- Category 1: Computer software purchased by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign non-resident supplier/manufacturer. Category 2: Purchase

DCIT INTL. TAX 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI vs. DASSAULT SYSTEMES BIOVIA K.K., JAPAN

ITA 1253/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. TomarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

copyright or right of use in the copyright. 8.5 It has been submitted that the appellant’s position in relation to taxability of software payments has been accepted by the AO in AY 2018- 19 and 2019-20 pursuant to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2