Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 256 (3.62 seconds)
Documents citing The Commr Of Income Tax vs M/S Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on 24 September, 2009

John Deere Eqipment P. Ltd.,, Pune vs Deputy Director Of Income-Tax,, on 23 January, 2019

definition of ‗royalty' under DTAA, obviously includes software and he further observed that there was no requirement of transfer of copyright for treating the payment as ‗royalty' under DTAA. The Assessing Officer further observed that the payment received for supply of software was taxable as ‗royalty' and in turn, relied on different decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra). In the absence of agreement being available with the Assessing Officer, the findings of Assessing Officer that software was in nature of literary or scientific work, cannot stand. When going into the aspect of purchase of software being royalty or not, the issue which has to be seen is whether the assessee had purchased copyright or copyrighted articles. The purchase of software by a person cannot be held to be work of literary or scientific work. There is no merit in the observations of Assessing Officer in this regard and the same are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 72 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore on 17 November, 2017

In reply, learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A) and submitted that both the judgments in the case of Wipro Ltd. (Supra) are in the context of section 40 (a) (i) whereas the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) is in context of section 195 and in the present case also, the dispute is in context of section 195 and therefore, this judgment ITA ITA 595/Bang/2016 Page - 5 No. 1388/Bang/2013 rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) should be followed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 186 - Full Document

Intertec Software Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Ito, Bangalore on 13 October, 2017

7. There is no dispute that the present issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) and learned AR of the assessee has merely cited these two judgments rendered in the case of WIPRO Ltd. (Supra) and no other argument was made to the effect that this issue is not covered against the assessee by this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Cast Software Inc., Delhi vs Dcit (International Taxation), New ... on 17 January, 2019

"22. Thus, in view of the discussion made above and respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the cases of Nokia Networks (supra); Ericsson A.B. (supra); Infrasoft Ltd. (supra); and Alcatel Lucent Canada (supra)., we hold that the payment received by the assessee does not fall within the ambit of'royalty' under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA and hence, the same cannot be taxed under the terms of India USA Treaty. If the receipts cannot be taxed under the treaty as royalty, then it cannot be taxed under the domestic law under section 9(l)(vi) Income Tax Act and the amended provision cannot be read into treaty as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in aforesaid cases. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prasad vs Assistant on 2 December, 2011

23. If, as suggested by the counsel for the Revenue, we permit the Assessing Officer to ascertain full facts and bring them on record, and then decide whether income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment or not, we would permit the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment only for fishing enquiry. Significantly, before issuing notice for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer had gathered the assessee's views on the nature of payment made. The assessee had firmly contended that the payments did not incur any tax liability in India on the supplier. The assessee, therefore, contended that despite the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax and another vs. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd (supra), since the said judgment is stayed by the Apex Court, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Without any further enquiry, the Assessing Officer straightaway issued notice for reopening such assessment. As we have already held, the Assessing Officer did not have any basis to permit the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax in case of the assessee had escaped assessment. In that view of the matter, both the petitions are allowed. Notices impugned at Annexure-A to both the petitions, are quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 15 October, 2020

"4. The Ld A.R further submitted that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has rendered its decision holding that the payments made for purchase of license to use software in the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (supra) on 15.10.2011. Prior to the said decision of jurisdictional High Court, there were decisions holding that the payments for software licenses do not constitute royalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Allegris Services India Pvt Ltd, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,, ... on 15 September, 2017

5.2 The ITAT 'C' Bench in the case M/s WS Atkins India Pvt. Ltd and in the case of Infotech Enterprises Ltd of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n a c c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to in the case of Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), identical issue was considered and decided by 10 IT(TP)A Nos.1370 & 1438/Bang/2014 the Mumbai Tribunal. Following were the relevant observations:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Wipro Limited , Bangalore vs The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income ... on 21 June, 2019

7. There is no dispute that the present issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) and learned AR of the assessee has merely cited these two judgments rendered in the case of WIPRO Ltd. (Supra) and no other argument was made to the effect that this issue is not covered against the assessee by this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 69 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ingersoll - Rand International (India) ... vs Acit, Bangalore on 25 October, 2019

It is submitted that liability to deduct tax at source cannot be fastened on the assessee on the basis of retrospective amendment to the Act (Finance Act 2012 amendment thedefinition of royalty with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976) or asubsequent ruling of a court (the Karnataka HC in CIT v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 141) was passed on October 15,2011).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Acer India Private Limited , ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It) ... on 5 October, 2020

7. In our considered view, the principles set out in the above said decisions could be applied to the instant cases also, even though the issue involved in these cases relate to the demand raised u/s 201(1) and consequent interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act. In the instant case also, the assessee was under bonafide belief that there was no required to deduct tax at source from the payments made for purchase of software, since there were certain decisions holding so. However, the jurisdictional High Court held that the payments made for purchase of software is in the nature of royalty and the said IT(IT)A Nos.107 to 114/Bang/2018 M/s. Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 14 of 15 decision came to be pronounced on 15.10.2011. Accordingly, following the principles laid down by the co-ordinate benches in the above cited cases, we hold that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default in respect of payments made for purchase of licensed software prior to 15.10.2011, being the date of pronouncement of the decision in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (supra). Accordingly, the demand raised in the hands of the assessee u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 could not be sustained and the demands raised in respect of payments made prior to 15.10.2011 in assessment year 2012-13 could also not be sustained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next