TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. In any case, when the prior decision in case of CIT Vs M/s Synopsis International Ltd [ 2013 (2) TMI 448 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and in the latest decision in the case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (10) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] on the issue of payment being royalty then the contention raised by the learned AR is devoid of any merits. The Tribunal in case of M/s Synopsis International Ltd. (Supra) for the assessment year : 2006-07, has decided an identical issue against the assessee - ITA Nos.1401 to 1403/Bang/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2015 - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Narendra Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri Dr. Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icenses was not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act, as the said payments do not comprise of income chargeable to tax in India. 4. The ld.AO and CIT(A)-IV have erred in concluding that;- i) The payment made by the appellant is taxable Royalty both under the Act ad India-USA DTAA or India- Singapore DTAA. ii) The payment made by the appellant is towards copyright in the software license; iii) The payment made for transferable right to use enduser license and therefore, is royalty; iv) The payment is chargeable top tax in India and therefore, the appellant was liable for deduction of tax at source; and v) The appellant is assessee in default within the meaning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copyright articles and therefore, there was no income chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient. The AO while passing the order u/s 201(1) and 201!A) of the IT Act dated 20- 03-2012 held that the assessee is in default for non-deduction of tax u/s 195 of the IT Act, 1961 because the payment made by the assessee is a royalty payment and therefore, the same is taxable in India. The assessee challenges the action of the AO before the CIT(A), but could not succeed. The CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd Others 245 CTR (Kar.) 481 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Synopsis International Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Samsung Electronics Ltd. (Supra) has been decided by the Hon ble High Court against the assessee and in favour of the revenue the learned AR has submitted that a different view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Wipro Ltd and therefore, the judgment in the case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd (Supra) should be treated as per in curiam, because the earlier decision of the Division Bench was not followed while deciding the case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (Supra). There is no dispute that the Tribunal is bound by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and in case of different views of the Hon ble High Court the latest judgment of the Hon ble High Court is binding. Therefore, the Tribunal is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prior decision in case of CIT Vs M/s Synopsis International Ltd (Supra) and in the latest decision in the case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Supra) on the issue of payment being royalty then the contention raised by the learned AR is devoid of any merits. The Tribunal in case of M/s Synopsis International Ltd. (Supra) for the assessment year : 2006-07, has decided an identical issue against the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (Supra). The CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant finding of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Synopsis International Ltd. in para 4.3 of the impugned order, as under; 4.3 A similar issue on identical fact was examined by the Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held; It is not in dispute before us that an identical issue has been considered by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd Others 245 CTR (Kar.) 481 has held that payment to nonresident foreign software suppliers for purchase of shrink wrapped software was in the nature of royalty. The Hon ble Court held that what is granted under the license is only a license to use the software for internal business without having any right for making any alteration or reverse engineering or creating sub-license while the copyright continues to be with the non-resident as per the agreement. That even as per the agreements entered into with other distributors as also the end user licens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
