TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra). Since, these two judgments cited by him are not applicable as per above discussion; we respectfully follow the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) and decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A). - Decided against assessee. - IT(IT)A No. 1388/Bang/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2017 - SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri B. S. Sudheendra, CA For the Respondent : Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e levy of tax and interest being bad in law and are liable to be deleted. 2.3 In any case and without further prejudice, the levy of tax and interest is erroneous and also excessive. 3. In any case, the authorities below have erred in not considering the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements in proper perspective. On proper consideration of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, the payments made by the appellant would not warrant any tax deduction at source. 4.The various case laws and judicial relied upon by the authorities below are not applicable to the facts of the case. The conclusions drawn based on inapplicable / inappropriate pronouncements are to be totally disregarded and order passed is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 15.10.2011. In reply, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the earlier judgment in the case of Wipro Ltd. (Supra) dated 25.08.2010 was also not brought to the notice of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) decided on 15.10.2011 and therefore, the first judgment dated 25.08.2010 should be followed and this judgment is in favour of the assessee. In reply, learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A) and submitted that both the judgments in the case of Wipro Ltd. (Supra) are in the context of section 40 (a) (i) whereas the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) is in context of section 195 and in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before the lower authorities. The revenue filed appeal before Hon ble Karnataka High Court and the tribunal order was confirmed. Hence, this is seen that as per this judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court, the decision is not on this aspect that it is Royalty or not and therefore, this judgment is not relevant in the present case. 6. Now, we examine the applicability of the second judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of WIPRO Ltd. vs. DCIT (Supra) rendered on 25.03.2015. As per this judgment, in Para 171, it was held that in earlier judgment dated 25.08.2010, similar question was decided in favour of the assessee and against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
