IN THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAKA, BANGALORE oAnmrfiflsTHE mw:mmcm*oEcEMBERfixfiQV_ PRESENT 6" THEHONBLEMR"JUSHCEKLAM$UURKfii 1 AND» --_ : H'¢g %;;", THEEKMWBLENHLJUSHQEARAvmfi)KUMAR_,_j ;I.A££0__- 127% v f 1 BEHWVEENT N z n 1 The Commissionezfiof In::§om;e%'~Ta;Xi,' " « _ International Taxation, * Rastrothanga Buiidinvg,'-., .. Nrupathu11ga«.Rogid, _gB§3V;.ng;;i1o1je.u V' " V' 2. The 1:1'¢¢:né1o'*:'é_x':o::f:¢er,_ Ir:_ternafionaj Taxatitm, _ _* Ward' 5 19(2)} Rast"1*Q_th;5_1na Building, Nrupathunga 'Road,.__Ba'nga1ore. = V Appellants: (By"Sri.. K.V';-Aravind, Adv. & Sri. M.V. Seshachala, Adv.) India Pvt. Ltd, 131/82/2¢;3m'A:Bkmk, Korarr;ar1ga1a,Banga}ore~ 1 7. " " Respondent:
A ” (By Sfi..’i’.Suryar1arayana, Advocate for M/s. King &
v.ӣ?afi:idge, Advs.]
This Appeal is filed Under Section 260A
Tax Act, 1961 praying to in t.he allow the appeaij~and;_.set
aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore 4_
No.920/Bang/2002 dated 06.01.2006_.and’::’confirm the
order of the appellate comrnis’s’ionerf4 c_onfirmi11g? the i
order passed by the Income r.In-te:*riati@-rial
Taxation, Ward19(Zl. BangaloreL.__ W A V–
This appeal coming for day;
ARAVIND KUMAR J. delivered’.theiolloyvingv: V}
The revenue order of the
Income _ passed in IT A
No.29Q lelglyipgvaoloe.
admission of this appeal the
following of law has been
forrpnlulated non :7;~§¢2007 to consider the question of law
a v:V’forn1a,ilated”‘1n_I.T.A.No.265/2006.
the Tribunal was correct in holding
. d that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS in
1′ respect of payments made for purchase of
W’
software as the same cannot be trea’ted as
income liable to tax in India as.&..Roya:1t:yy or
Scientific Work under section 9
with Double Taxation Avoidance .1: 9
and treaties.
Whether the Trihuna1:4’was_z correct’ in h.oidirig
that since the assessee had only
right to use the copV§ri,g11t_vi.e..,’ th.e_Msoi’tware and
not the e’1i1:._{f3 copyrigh’t.,tAitself, the payment
cannot be treated per the Double
A.\Aroid§3;nc.eA'”iggreeiiient and Treaties
jw’hich1j,.” .be_nefic.iai.’V’ to the assessee and
9 of the Act should not
take i1*1’CV'(:Ii~CKOI}_§id’€~fatiOI1.
iWdhethe_rVAthe«.:_%i”rihuna1 should have recorded a
finding that it is under section 195(2) and (3)
d [4] of the Act, the chargeability to tax or
the recipient is decided and having failed
.”t”o<::obtain such a decision the assessee was
"hound to deduct tax at source as held by the
Apex Court in 239 ITR 587.
4.
ts the
Whether the assessee can question the
taxability of the recipient in section_
reason, when _l95(2}t3}(%l) the Act
certificate is not = . _
. Whether ‘lribu§3al yVa_,s».:Lcorrect in holding
thatythe p’a._rta’Keslltlhe character of
ll of l”g0’ods and therefore
cannot royalty payment liable to
Income ._
We_havel’ heard Sri.M.V.Seshachla learned
jforvappellants and Sri.Suryanarayana, learned
._ for the respondent and it is brought
‘notice of the Court during the course of
argunients the questions of law formulated in ITA
l”‘-126$/2006 has been answered by this Court on
$2″
5
2443-2009 in ETA 2808/2005 connected with other
matters including ITA 265/2006 by answering the
questions of law in favour of the revenue anuéggrjnst
the assessee.
4. Accordingly. fo11owing;’th’e«.said, Ewe 01′
answer the questions of law forinuiated herein ‘~abov=e ‘in
favour of the revenue anC1vs._{1gainst”–th’euétssessee. The
appeal is allowed. Pé1:t_ies_.’to’–beVé1;r their eostsf
Sd/w
§UDGE
gé/Q
§§§Q§
” ~ –. nshb ”