9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct tax at source u/s 195. Hence, the assessee cannot be held to be liable for non deduction of tax u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A). We thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete demand created u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A). The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed. Penalty u/s 271C of the Act for such non deduction of tax at source out of payment made for purchase of royalty - HELD THAT:- As already held that the assessee has not defaulted in non deduction of tax at source and hence, the assessee is not liable for any penalty u/s 271C. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are thus, dismissed. - ITA No.1440/PUN/2014, ITA No.1080/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2019 - Ms. Sushma Chow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be termed as scientific work. c. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the licensed software qualifies as secret formula or process. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred to appreciate that the software payment made by the appellant does not fall within the meaning of the term 'Royalty' as per respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements ('DTAA'). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing relief under the beneficial provisions of India - USA and India - Singapore DTAA under section 90(2) of the Act for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-I, Pune [ the learned AO'] erred in initiating proceedings under section 201(1) read with section 201(1A) of the Act beyond the reasonable period of four years. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in applying the tax rate of 15% under India USA Tax Treaty instead of the applicable beneficial rate of 10% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) under the Act while computing the tax demand pursuant to the order passed under section 201(1) read with section 201(1A). The Appellant submits that each of the above additional grounds of appeal are independ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer held the case of assessee to be covered under Income Tax Act and also under DTAA, in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in ITA No.2808 of 2005, dated 15.10.2011. He took us through various paras of assessment order. He further pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDIT (IT) (2019) 70 ITR (Trib) 73 (Pune). 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that purchase of software by the assessee being copyrighted article is not covered by the term royalty‟ under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Where the assessee did not acquire any copyright in the software, is not covered under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. We further hold that amended definition of royalty‟ under the domestic law cannot be extended to the definition of royalty‟ under DTAA, where the term royalty‟ originally defined has not been amended. As per definition of royalty‟ under DTAA, it is payment received in consideration for use or right to use any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work, etc.; thus, purchase of copyrighted article does not fall in realm of roy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
