9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, explanation to Section 9 of the Act has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2010. Therefore, it is applicable from and after A.Y. 2011-12. Admittedly, relevant assessment years for consideration in these appeals are 2009-10 and 2010-11. The substitution has taken place in the Finance Act, 2010, which is effective from 2011-12. In view of the authority in Engineering Analysis. [ 2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein held person mentioned in section 195 of the Income Tax Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of royalty inserted by explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years in question, at a time when such explanation was not actually and fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also when such payments are not explicitly declared exempt by the provisions of the Act. 2. Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a software company. It has entered into various agreements with several entities in various parts of the globe for export of software. In this case, we are concerned with outsourcing a portion of its on-site work to its subsidiary in China. The relevant assessment years for consideration in these appeals are 2009-10 2010-11. 4. In the proceedings initiated under Section 201(1) 201(1A) of the Act [Income Tax Act, 1961.] , the A.O. [Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered in India or have such a live link within India. 7. Further, placing reliance on Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021]125 taxmann.com 42 (SC), Shri Suryanarayana submitted that issue is no more res-integra. He submitted that the Apex Court has also considered the view taken by the Bombay High Court in similar circumstances at paras 82 to 84 of the said decision. In substance, his contention is that assessee could not have been called upon to deduct tax when statute did not contain any provision requiring the assesee to cause deduction. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals. 8. In reply, Shri Aravind contended that amendment is only clarificatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
