Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.91 seconds)
Cognizant Technology Solutions vs Commissioner Of Income Tax cites

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Tata Elxsi Ltd. on 22 February, 2019

The earlier orders passed by the ITAT, which have been followed for the relevant assessment years in the present cases, relied upon the orders passed by the ITATs in other cases, placing reliance upon the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT and another v. Yokogawa India Ltd and others2; and CIT and another v. Tata Elxsi Ltd and others3, wherein it has been held that current year's profit of the eligible units should not be reduced by setting off of the brought forward losses of earlier years, even though relating to eligible units. It was also held therein that the Assessing 2 (2012) 246 CTR 226 (Kar) 3 (2013) 247 CTR 334 (Kar) _________________ Page 12 of 145 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm ) TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016 Officer has to give deduction under Section 10A of the Act on eligible profits of the current assessment year.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Hcl Technologies Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 April, 2017

11.5. Learned Standing Counsel relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of HCL Ltd v CIT9, wherein it was held that payments can be of two types. One, may be either for ‘use’ or 'right to use’ of an equipment or an intellectual property right (as it 8 (2013) 38 taxmann.com 150 (Madras) 9 (2015) 54 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi) _________________ Page 29 of 145 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm ) TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016 was in that case) or the payment may be for the 'transfer of right to use’ or ‘sale’ of the same equipment or intellectual property right. The Court held that insofar as the latter two payments are concerned, they will not attract any royalty, because they may at best be treated as capital gains or business income, if there is a permanent establishment in the country from which the payments are made. On the other hand, the payments made for the former two situations i.e., use or right to use of an equipment or an intellectual property, it was held that they will be treated as a royalty and, therefore, would attract withholding tax as per the Act or the tax treaty whichever is more beneficial to the taxpayers. In the light of the said decision, he submits that mere use is sufficient to attract royalty payment and there is no necessity that the control and/or possession of such equipment should also be with the assessee to be treated as royalty, because if the possession and control are also handed over to the assessee without there being an actual sale, then it would amount to “transfer of right to use” of an equipment, which is treated as a “deemed sale”, which is just one step short of actual sale. Even though possession and control were _________________ Page 30 of 145 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm ) TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016 not granted to the assessee in the case on hand, given the locus of the equipments (they were undersea cables), it is only natural to arrive at a conclusion that the payments made will fall within the meaning of use or a right to use of the equipments, since the assessee cannot have possession over the same, but is benefited from those equipments which belong to Sprint USA.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1