9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT:- Oder passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-(LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [ 2024 (6) TMI 1069 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which according to the learned counsel for the parties would govern the present proceedings as there is a DTAA entered with the countries in question, with whose residents the transactions were entered into by the assessee. The amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties would govern the present proceedings. For the sake of convenience, we note the said order which reads thus :- 1. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue and Mr. M. Agarwal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. At the outset, Mr. Suresh Kumar has stated that the Revenue would not have any objection for this Bench taking up the proceedings. 4. This Appeal of the Revenue assails an order dated 14th July, 2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ), whereby a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT(A)) stand dismissed. The primary issue which had arisen for consideration of the Tribunal was as to whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) entered between India and these countries. The Tribunal also observed that a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case in ITAS No.2529/Mum/2008 and ITAS No.4587/Mum/ 2010 had held that in such cases similar remittances made to the residents of Germany and France, were held to be not liable for deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal, following the decision of its co-ordinate Bench, in assessee s own case, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by the impugned order. 9. At the outset, Learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9 (1) (vi) requiring deduction of tax at source. The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT vs. Ericson A.B. and DIT vs. Nokia Network. The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd (supra). The Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the said case upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court in interpreti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income-tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. 170. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Appeal No.28 of 2018 and other connected Appeals., wherein following the earlier order passed by us on 21st June, 2024 (supra), we had dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue on a similar question of law. Thereafter, again a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue was heard by us on 2nd July, 2024 in Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) Vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.571 of 2017 along with connected Appeals., on similar question of law, which were also disposed of in terms of our order dated 21st June, 2024, as noted hereinabove. 5. Thus, for the reasons as set out in our order dated 21st June, 2024 passed in (supra) and other connected Appeals, we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
