Bombay High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Sab Miller India Ltd(Formerly Skol ... on 24 November, 2018
Author: M.S. Sanklecha
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S. Sanklecha
Uday S. Jagtap 513-16-ITXA-939=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2016
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-11
Mumbai .. Appellant
v/s.
SAB Miller India Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala I/b PDS Legal for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. DATED : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2018.
P.C.
1. Heard. This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2008-09.
2. Admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-
(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) were not applicable in respect of depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act on Foster brand for which payment was remitted without deducting tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 of the Act?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that license fees paid to group companies viz. SAB Miller A K& A (pty) Ltd. For assessing Syspro Accounting does not fall under Section 40(a)(i) as the said expenditure is not royalty within the meaning of Explanation of Section 40(a)(i) read with Explanation -2 to Section 9(1)(vi) by relying on the decision of Sonata 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2018 00:56:28 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 513-16-ITXA-939=.doc Information & Technology Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1507/Mum/2012) which has been contested by the Revenue before the Hon'lbe Bombay High Court and without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (345 ITR 494), wherein it was held that the payment made for purchase of software falls within the definition of 'Royalty' as per clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?
3. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relating to the present appeals available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.
4. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No. 1905 of 2013.
5. Ms. Amalsadwala, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2018 00:56:28 :::