Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (4.09 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi I New ... vs M/S. Bharti Airtel Limited on 10 January, 2018

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs The Cit (Tds), Bhopal on 23 April, 2024

4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] 91 who invests may not take out a patent for his invention but unless some there inventor independently and by his own efforts come to duplicate the invention the original invention remains exclusive to the investor and it is conceivable that such an inventor might exploit his invention permitting some other person to have the user thereof against payment. Similarly, it is possible for a person carrying out operations of manufacture and production of a particular product to acquire specialised knowledge in respect of such manufacture and production which is not generally available. A person having such specialised knowledge can claim exclusive right to the same as long as he chooses not to make such specialised knowledge public. It is also conceivable that such a person can exploit and utilise such specialised knowledge in the same way as a person holding a patent or owning a mineral right or having the copyright of a publication to allow a limited user of such specialised knowledge to others in confidence against payment. There is no reason why payment for the user of such specialised knowledge, though not protected by a patent, should not be treated as royalty or in the nature of royalty.-Handley Page us. Butterioorth. 19 Tax Cases 322 relied on. "
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs Personiv Contact Centres India Pvt Ltd ( ... on 22 February, 2023

4.7. The article 12(4)(b) clearly states that for in service to be classified as an included service the technical knowledge should be made available to the recipient or as to enable him to apply the technology to be used In the present case the communication charges are being paid for inter communication services. These can in no manner be seen to make available in knowledge to the recipient of the service that is the appellant in this case. In the absence of any knowledge being available the consideration being paid cannot fall within the definition of fee for included services. Therefore, the amount would not be taxable under DTAA. The services under the domestic legislation also do not constitute technical services specifically in view of decision of CIT vs. Bharti Airtel of the Delhi High Court which was in principle agreed to by the H'bl Supreme Court. In view of these facts and the clear judicial mandate of the jurisdictional High Court the communication charges paid would not constitute fee for included services in the hands of the recipient. As a result the amount received by the company which is a non-resident is not taxable under the act or the treaty. Once the same (the payment made) does not include any taxable amount no liability u/s 195 arises. The disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is therefore not warranted 4.8. The AO in his remand report has further submitted that the services sought by the appellant were from M/s Tata Incorporated, US. The AO indicates that as per the guidelines of Department of Telecommunications. The telecom resources have been provided by an entity (Tata Communications, America) who did not have requisite license to provide the services in India. It has been submitted by the appellant that the services being rendered by the non- resident company at the 12 ITA No.7295/Del./2019 foreign end and not at the Indian end The license required is for a case where the point of presence is in India. Without going into detailed technicalities requirement it is seen that the terms and conditions of the DOT are prima facie not relevant to the taxability of the same being paid The appellant has taken some services which are inter connection services from an entity in Us. The sum paid to the US entity is not taxable in India. This fact per se is sufficient to insulate the assessee from the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). In view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.1,52,72,504/- on account of communication charges paid is hereby deleted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs Dcit Tds, Indore on 23 April, 2024

4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] 91 who invests may not take out a patent for his invention but unless some there inventor independently and by his own efforts come to duplicate the invention the original invention remains exclusive to the investor and it is conceivable that such an inventor might exploit his invention permitting some other person to have the user thereof against payment. Similarly, it is possible for a person carrying out operations of manufacture and production of a particular product to acquire specialised knowledge in respect of such manufacture and production which is not generally available. A person having such specialised knowledge can claim exclusive right to the same as long as he chooses not to make such specialised knowledge public. It is also conceivable that such a person can exploit and utilise such specialised knowledge in the same way as a person holding a patent or owning a mineral right or having the copyright of a publication to allow a limited user of such specialised knowledge to others in confidence against payment. There is no reason why payment for the user of such specialised knowledge, though not protected by a patent, should not be treated as royalty or in the nature of royalty.-Handley Page us. Butterioorth. 19 Tax Cases 322 relied on. "
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next