9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant : Farrokh Irani. For the Respondent : Narender Kumar. ORDER:- PER : R.S. Syal This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 05.08.2010 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Director of Income-tax (IT) 3(1) has erred in treating and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has further erred in confirming the entire payments received by the Appellant from customers in India during the captioned year are taxable as "royalty" under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew taken by the Assessing Officer in the draft order. In the final order passed by the A.O., the said amount of Rs. 5.90 crore was subjected to tax both as per section 9(1)(iv) and the DTAA. The assessee is in appeal on this issue. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. At the very outset, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (IT) v. Wipro Ltd. [(2011) 203 Taxman 621 (Kar.)] and submitted that Wipro Ltd. a customer of the present assessee made payment without deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. When the matter finally came up before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it was held that the payments made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and the same has been held to be in the nature of 'royalty', liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 195. The Hon'ble High Court noticed in the penultimate para of the judgment that: "....the payment made by the respondent to M/s. Gartner, which is a non-resident company, would amount to 'royalty' and wherefore, there is a statutory obligation on the part of the respondent to make tax deduction ....". We are unable to see as to how the contrary view expressed by the Tribunal in three orders can be adopted in the case of the payee-assessee, when the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has rendered judgment on the very same transaction in the hands of the payers. If the argument tendered by the ld. AR is accepted, it would am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
