9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier decision in WIPRO Ltd. v. ITO [2005] 94 ITD 9/1 SOT 663 (Bang.) has allowed the appeals filed by the respondent herein and reversed the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer by holding that the payments made by the respondent herein - assessee to M/s. Gartner Group, U.S.A. (for short, 'M/s. Gartner'), a non-resident Company was not towards 'royalty' and the same was not liable for taxation in India and consequently, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax under Section 195 of the Act and accordingly, deleted the tax liability under Section 201(1) and interest levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act. 2. The material facts necessary for disposal of these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount to royalties and accordingly, demanded from the assessee an amount of Rs. 41,91,260/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Only) towards tax under Section 195 of the Act, and interest of Rs. 13,18,040/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Forty only) under Section 201(1A) of the Act for assessee's failure to deduct tax at source. Being aggrieved by the same, I.T.A. Nos.62, 63, 64 and 65/R-19/CIT(A)IV/03-04 were filed by the respondent - assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Bangalore. 2.3 The Appellate Authority by order dated 28.11.2003, confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent -assessee. Being aggrieved by the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the order of the Tribunal dated 11.11.2005 impugned in these appeals, wherein the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in Wipro Ltd.'s case (supra) in arriving at the conclusion that the payment made by the respondent - assessee to M/s. Gartner, a non-resident Company would not amount to royalty, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. We answer the substantial question of law framed in all these appeals as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment made by the respondent to M/s. Gartner, a non-resident Company did not amount to royalty, In the negative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and accordingly, pass the following Order:- All the appeals are allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
