Mumbai ITAT rules that
payment by Reliance Communication Ltd. (‘assessee’) to non-resident vendors
(based in Australia, Israel, Sweden, Singapore and USA) for supplying software,
not royalty under respective DTAA, holds it as payment for 'copyrighted
article' and not ‘copyright’ itself; Observes that all software license agreements
stipulate that the assessee would be using the software for ‘operation of its
wireless network only’ and it was prevented from utilizing the software for
commercial uses; Further, observes that copyrights in the software were not
transferred to the customers and access to the ‘source codes’ in the software
was not granted to assessee, also there was restriction on copying the
software; Moreover, ITAT observes that in individual supplier's hands (i.e.
Nortel Networks India International Inc. USA, Team Telecom International Ltd.,
Israel, Motorola Inc USA, Alcatel USA International Marketing Inc USA, ZTE
Corporation China and Ericsson AB Sweden), the Courts / Tribunals have held
that sums received by them from assessee for supply of software for wireless
network were not taxable and that the payments could not be termed as royalty;
Cites plethora of rulings including Madras HC ruling in Neyveli Lignite
Corporation Ltd., Delhi HC ruling in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co.Ltd.,
rejects Revenue’s reliance on Karnataka HC ruling in Samsung, relies on SC
ruling in Pradip J. Mehta to hold that when two views were possible, then the
interpretation in favour of the taxpayer should be adopted:ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GST Litigation Update: Key Judicial and Advance Rulings
High Court: Interest Refund Allowed on Subsequent Realisation of Export Proceeds In Ernst and Young LLP v. UOI (2026-VIL-1215-P&H) , t...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
E very non-resident individual or organisation should obtain a Permanent Account Number (PAN) number if they receive an income and...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
CIT vs. Kan Construction And Colonizers (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) The assessee sold a plot of land for Rs. 79 lakhs. The AO held th...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
1. Concept of “limited liability partnership” LLP is an alternative corporate business form that gives the benefits of limited liability ...
No comments:
Post a Comment