TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . These four appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Bangalore Bench 'B' in I.T.A. Nos.145 to 148/Bang/2004 in respect of the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 dated 11.11.2005, wherein the Tribunal following its earlier 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reasons for non-deduction of tax. The assessee explained the reasons for non-deduction of tax by contending that the payments in question would not constitute 'royalty' within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (for short 'DTAA') and the payments made are akin to payments made for a railway time table, which gives information about the train schedules or to obtain a book. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the said payments can be treated as royalties. 2.2 The Assessing Officer - Income Tax Officer (Internal Taxation), by order dated 26.03,2003, rejected the objections raised by the assessee and held that the payments made by the respondent to M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal, these appeals are filed by the revenue contending that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in Wipro Ltd.'s case (supra), which has been challenged in I.T.A. Nos.2804, 2805 and 2807 of 2005 before this Court and the Tribunal was not at all justified in holding that the payment made by the respondent -assessee to M/s. Gartner was not royalty. 3. In ITA Nos.2804, 2805 and 2807 of 2005 and connected cases, wherein identical contentions had been raised, this Court by separate order passed today, has reversed the decision of the Tribunal in Wipro's case in I.T.A. Nos.150 to 154 of 2004 dated 30.12.2004. Therefore, following the reasons assigned in I.T.A, Nos.2804, 2805 and 2807 of 2005, disposed of by us b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
