9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since the issues are common and connected, these are consolidated for the sake of convenience. 3. For the sake of reference, we are referring to grounds and figures of AY 2018-19. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee for AY 2018-19 read as under :- "Ground 1- Impugned Order has been passed in violation of Section 144C of the Act 1.1. The Impugned Order has been passed arbitrarily and illegally in complete disregard of the directions given by the Hon'ble DRP which were binding on the learned AO under Section 144C(10) of the Act. 1.2. The Hon'ble DRP directed the Learned AO to verify the claim of the Appellant in relation to income from hardware appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysis Centre OF Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC). The applicability of the said decision of the Hon'ble SC has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for A Y 2016-17 vide order dated 07.06.2022. 2.4. The learned AO grossly erred in re-characterizing the transaction in relation to income from the sale of software licenses as FTS, where under the same circumstances, for AY 2016-17, the Department has allegedly assessed the same as Royalty, thereby violating the principle of consistency. Ground 3 - The learned AO and the learned DRP have erred in concluding that the income from the rendition of services is taxable in India. 3.1 The learned AO and the learned DRP have erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee received an amount of Rs.152,66,98,440/- from the sale and maintenance service of software licences. The assessee claimed the same as not taxable under Article 12 of the India- Singapore DTAA relating to royalty. However, AO was not convinced. He held that the consideration received by the assessee amounting to Rs.152,66,98,440/- is 'fee for technical services' under Article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA and IT Act. Assessee agitated the same before the DRP but did not succeed. 6. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of 5 which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income-tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
