{"id":210021,"date":"2010-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-27T23:03:45","modified_gmt":"2017-01-27T17:33:45","slug":"commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S Kapadia<\/div>\n
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, H.L. Dattu, Surinder Singh Nijjar<\/div>\n
                                                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n            C.A.No.235\/2010        @    SLP(C) No. 4719\/2008\n\nCommr. of Income Tax-V, New Delhi                      ... Appellant(s)\n\n                  versus\n\nM\/s. Oracle Software India Ltd.                      ... Respondent(s)\n\n                                       with\n\n             C.A.No.238\/2010       @     SLP(C) No.5143\/2009\n             C.A.No.239\/2010       @     SLP(C) No.6847\/2008\n\n\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
S.H. KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.     A    short   question      which       arises      for   determination   in<\/p>\n
this batch of civil appeals is whether the process by which a<\/p>\n
blank Compact Disc (CD) is transformed into software loaded<\/p>\n
disc constitutes “manufacture or processing of goods” in terms<\/p>\n
of Section 80IA(1) read with Section 80IA(12)(b), as it stood<\/p>\n
then, of the Income Tax Act, 1961?\n<\/p>\n
3.     For the sake of convenience, we may refer to bare<\/p>\n
facts mentioned in Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 6847 of 2008.<\/p>\n
In this appeal, we are concerned with the Assessment Years<\/p>\n
1995-96 and 1996-97.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Assessee     is     100%   subsidiary         of    Oracle     Corporation,<\/p>\n
USA.   It    is   incorporated      with       the     object    of   developing,
\ndesigning,       improving,        producing,     marketing,       distributing,<\/p>\n
buying,     selling      and       importing     of        computers     softwares.<\/p>\n
Assessee is entitled to sub-licence the software developed by<\/p>\n
Oracle Corporation, USA.            Assessee imports Master Media of the<\/p>\n
software from Oracle Corporation, USA which is duplicated on<\/p>\n
blank discs, packed and sold in the market along with relevant<\/p>\n
brouchers.         Assessee        pays   a    lump-sum       amount     to     Oracle<\/p>\n
Corporation, USA for the import of Master Media.                       In addition<\/p>\n
thereto, assessee also pays royalty at the rate of 30% of the<\/p>\n
price of the licensed product.                  The only right which the<\/p>\n
assessee has is to replicate or duplicate the software.                            They<\/p>\n
do not have any right to vary, amend or make value addition to<\/p>\n
the software embedded in the Master Media.                      According to the<\/p>\n
assessee, it uses machinery to convert blank CDs into recorded<\/p>\n
CDs which along with other processes become a Software Kit.<\/p>\n
According to the assessee, it is the blank CD in the present<\/p>\n
case     which    constitutes        raw-material.            According       to     the<\/p>\n
assessee, Master Media cannot be conveyed as it is.                           In order<\/p>\n
to sub-licence, a copy thereof has to be made and it is the<\/p>\n
making     of     this    copy      which     constitutes        manufacture          or<\/p>\n
processing of goods in terms of Section 80IA and consequently<\/p>\n
assessee is entitled to deduction under that Section.                          On the<\/p>\n
other hand, according to the Department, in the process of<\/p>\n
copying, there is no element of manufacture or processing of<\/p>\n
goods.    According to the Department, since the software on the<\/p>\n
Master Media and the software on the recorded media remains<\/p>\n
unchanged,       there   is   no    manufacture       or    processing    of       goods
\ninvolved in the activity of copying or duplicating, hence, the<\/p>\n
assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80IA.<\/p>\n
According to the Department, when the Master Media is made<\/p>\n
from what is lodged into the computer, it is a clone of the<\/p>\n
software in the computer and if one compares the contents of<\/p>\n
the Master Media with what is there in the computer\/ data<\/p>\n
bank,    there    is     no   difference,     hence,   according       to   the<\/p>\n
Department, there is no change in the use, character or name<\/p>\n
of the CDs even after the impugned process is undertaken by<\/p>\n
the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
5.       Before answering the controversy, we need to reproduce<\/p>\n
relevant provisions of Sections 80IA(1), 80IA(12)(b) as also<\/p>\n
Explanation      to    Section   33B   of   the   Income   Tax   Act   in   the<\/p>\n
following terms:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “80IA – Deduction in respect of profits and gains
\n        from industrial undertakings, etc.in certain cases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee
\n        includes any profits and gains derived from any
\n        business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or
\n        operation of a ship (such business being hereinafter
\n        referred to as the eligible business), there shall,
\n        in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
\n        this section, be allowed, in computing the total
\n        income of the assessee, a deduction from such
\n        profits and gains of an amount equal to the
\n        percentage specified in sub-section (5) and for such
\n        number of assessment years as is specified in sub-
\n        section (6).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ***                     ***\n                **\n        (12)    For the purposes of this section, -\n        (a)     ***             ***\n        (b)     \"industrial   undertaking\"  shall   have the\n<\/pre>\n
        meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to Section
\n        33B;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Explanation to Section 33B
\n     “Explanation:    In   this    section,    “industrial
\n     undertaking” means any undertaking which is mainly
\n     engaged   in   the   business    of   generation   or
\n     distribution of electricity or any other form of
\n     power or in the construction of ships or in the
\n     manufacture or processing of goods or in mining.”<\/p>\n
6.     Section 80IA occurs in Chapter VIA which deals with<\/p>\n
Deductions in respect of certain Incomes.        Where the gross<\/p>\n
total income of an assessee includes any profits derived from<\/p>\n
any business of an industrial undertaking to which Section<\/p>\n
80IA applies, there shall in accordance with and subject to<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 80IA, be allowed, in computing the<\/p>\n
total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits<\/p>\n
and gains of an amount equal to a specified percentage for<\/p>\n
such number of assessment years as specified in Section 80IA.<\/p>\n
For deciding the present controversy, it would be sufficient<\/p>\n
to notice that the gross total income of an assessee must<\/p>\n
include profits derived from any business (eligible) of an<\/p>\n
industrial undertaking which in terms of Section 80IA(12)(b)<\/p>\n
is given the same meaning as is assigned to that expression<\/p>\n
vide Explanation to Section 33B.         As can be seen from the<\/p>\n
Explanation to Section 33B, an industrial undertaking inter<\/p>\n
alia has been defined to mean any undertaking which is engaged<\/p>\n
inter alia in the manufacture or processing of goods.<\/p>\n
7.     At the outset, we may state that Section 80IA comes in<\/p>\n
Chapter VIA.     That Chapter, in a way, is a code by itself.    It<\/p>\n
provides   for   special   deductions.    Broadly,   these   special<\/p>\n
deductions are incentives provided for setting up industrial<\/p>\n
undertakings in backward areas, for earning profits in foreign
\nexchange,        for        setting      up    hotels,       etc.          It   is    in     this<\/p>\n
background           that    one     has      to    interpret       the    meaning      of   the<\/p>\n
expression “manufacture or processing of goods”.                                      One more<\/p>\n
aspect needs to be highlighted.                       Technological advancement in<\/p>\n
computer        science        makes       knowledge          as    of      today      obsolete<\/p>\n
tomorrow.        We need to move with the times.                          At the same time,<\/p>\n
one needs to take note of the fact that unlimited deductions<\/p>\n
are not permissible under Chapter VIA.                               Therefore, in each<\/p>\n
case, where an issue of this nature arises for determination,<\/p>\n
the Department should study the actual process undertaken by<\/p>\n
the assessee.           Duplication can certainly take place at home,<\/p>\n
however, one needs to draw a line between duplication done at<\/p>\n
home and commercial duplication.                          Even a pirated copy of a CD<\/p>\n
is    a    duplication         but    that         does    not     mean    that      commercial<\/p>\n
duplication as is undertaken in this case should be compared<\/p>\n
with home duplication which may result in pirated copy of a<\/p>\n
CD.       The point to be noted by the Department in each of such<\/p>\n
cases      is    to    study       the     actual         process    undertaken         by   the<\/p>\n
licensee who claims deduction under Section 80IA of the Income<\/p>\n
Tax Act, 1961.               At this stage, we may clarify that in this<\/p>\n
case we are concerned with the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it<\/p>\n
stood during the relevant Assessment Years.<\/p>\n
8.          From the details of Oracle Applications, we find that<\/p>\n
the software on the Master Media is an application software.<\/p>\n
It is not an operating software.                          It is not a system software.<\/p>\n
It    can       be     categorized            into    Product        Line       Applications,<\/p>\n
Application Solutions and Industry Applications.                                A commercial
\nduplication process involves four steps.                For the said process<\/p>\n
of commercial duplication, one requires Master Media, fully<\/p>\n
operational computer, CD Blaster Machine (a commercial device<\/p>\n
used for replication from Master Media), blank\/ unrecorded<\/p>\n
Compact    Disc     also     known   as   recordable    media    and   printing<\/p>\n
software     \/    labels.      The    Master    Media   is   subjected     to   a<\/p>\n
validation       and    checking     process    by   software    engineers      by<\/p>\n
installing and rechecking the integrity of the Master Media<\/p>\n
with   the       help   of    the    software    installed      in   the   fully<\/p>\n
operational computer.           After such validation and checking of<\/p>\n
the Master Media, the same is inserted in a machine which is<\/p>\n
called as the CD Blaster and a virtual image of the software<\/p>\n
in the Master Media is thereafter created in its internal<\/p>\n
storage device.         This virtual image is utilized to replicate<\/p>\n
the software on the recordable media.\n<\/p>\n
9.        What is virtual image?           It is an image that is stored<\/p>\n
in computer memory but it is too large to be shown on the<\/p>\n
screen.      Therefore, scrolling and panning are used to bring<\/p>\n
the unseen portions of the image into view. [See Microsoft<\/p>\n
Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 553]                    According to<\/p>\n
the same Dictionary, burning is a process involved in writing<\/p>\n
of a data electronically into a programmable read only memory<\/p>\n
(PROM) chip by using a special programming device known as a<\/p>\n
PROM programmer, PROM blower, or PROM blaster. [See Pages 64,<\/p>\n
77 of Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition]<\/p>\n
10.       In our view, if one examines the above process in the<\/p>\n
light of the details given hereinabove, commercial duplication
\ncannot be compared to home duplication.                        Complex technical<\/p>\n
nuances are required to be kept in mind while deciding issues<\/p>\n
of    the    present      nature.        The   term   “manufacture”        implies     a<\/p>\n
change, but, every change is not a manufacture, despite the<\/p>\n
fact    that      every    change   in    an   article    is    the   result      of   a<\/p>\n
treatment of labour and manipulation.                    However, this test of<\/p>\n
manufacture needs to be seen in the context of the above<\/p>\n
process.          If an operation\/ process renders a commodity or<\/p>\n
article fit for use for which it is otherwise not fit, the<\/p>\n
operation\/        process       falls    within   the    meaning      of    the   word<\/p>\n
“manufacture”.            Applying the above test to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case, we are of the view that, in the present case,<\/p>\n
the assessee has undertaken an operation which renders a blank<\/p>\n
CD fit for use for which it was otherwise not fit.                         The blank<\/p>\n
CD is an input.           By the duplicating process undertaken by the<\/p>\n
assessee, the recordable media which is unfit for any specific<\/p>\n
use gets converted into the programme which is embedded in the<\/p>\n
Master Media and, thus, blank CD gets converted into recorded<\/p>\n
CD by the afore-stated intricate process.                        The duplicating<\/p>\n
process changes the basic character of a blank CD, dedicating<\/p>\n
it to a specific use.                   Without such processing, blank CDs<\/p>\n
would       be    unfit    for    their    intended      purpose.          Therefore,<\/p>\n
processing of blank CDs, dedicating them to a specific use,<\/p>\n
constitutes a manufacture in terms of Section 80IA(12)(b) read<\/p>\n
with Section 33B of the Income Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
11.         One    of     the    arguments     advanced    on    behalf      of    the<\/p>\n
Department is that since the software on the Master Media and
\nthe software on the pre-recorded media is the same, there is<\/p>\n
no manufacture because the end product is not different from<\/p>\n
the original product.               We find no merit in this argument.<\/p>\n
Firstly, as stated above, the input in this case is blank<\/p>\n
disc.    Secondly, the test applied by the Department may not be<\/p>\n
relevant in the context of computer technology.                        One of the<\/p>\n
questions which arose for determination before this Court in<\/p>\n
the   case    of   Tata     Consultancy     Services    v.    State     of   Andhra<\/p>\n
Pradesh,<\/a> 137 STC 620 was whether a software programme put in<\/p>\n
media for transferring or marketing is “goods” under Section<\/p>\n
2(h) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.                          It<\/p>\n
was held that a software programme may consist of commands<\/p>\n
which enable the computer to perform a designated task.                          The<\/p>\n
copyright in the programme may remain with the originator of<\/p>\n
the programme.           But, the moment copies are made and marketed,<\/p>\n
they become goods.            It was held that even an intellectual<\/p>\n
property, once put on to a media, whether it will be in the<\/p>\n
form of computer discs or cassettes and marketed, it becomes<\/p>\n
goods.        It   was    further    held   that    there    is   no    difference<\/p>\n
between a sale of a software programme on a CD\/ Floppy from a<\/p>\n
sale of music on a cassette\/ CD.                    In all such cases the<\/p>\n
intellectual property is incorporated on a media for purposes<\/p>\n
of transfer and, therefore, the software and the media cannot<\/p>\n
be split up.       It was further held, in that judgment, that even<\/p>\n
though the intellectual process is embodied in a media, the<\/p>\n
logic    or    the       intelligence    of   the    programme         remains   an<\/p>\n
intangible property.          It was further held that when one buys a
\nsoftware programme, one buys not the original but a copy.                           It<\/p>\n
was further held that it is the duplicate copy which is read<\/p>\n
into the buyer’s computer and copied on memory device. [See<\/p>\n
Pages 630 and 631 of the said judgment]                       If one reads the<\/p>\n
judgment     in   Tata   Consultancy      Services      (supra),        it    becomes<\/p>\n
clear that the intelligence\/ logic (contents) of a programme<\/p>\n
do not change.       They remain the same, be it in the original or<\/p>\n
in the copy.        The Department needs to take into account the<\/p>\n
ground realities of the business and sometimes over-simplified<\/p>\n
tests create confusion, particularly, in modern times when<\/p>\n
technology grows each day.                To say, that contents of the<\/p>\n
original and the copy are the same and, therefore, there is<\/p>\n
manufacture would not be a correct proposition.                              What one<\/p>\n
needs to examine in each case is the process undertaken by the<\/p>\n
assessee.     Our judgment is confined strictly to the process<\/p>\n
impugned in the present case.             It is for this reason that the<\/p>\n
American Courts in such cases have evolved a new test to<\/p>\n
determine as to what constitutes manufacture.                       They have laid<\/p>\n
down   the   test    which    states      that   if     a    process    renders      a<\/p>\n
commodity or article fit for use which otherwise is not fit,<\/p>\n
the    operation     falls     within      the    letter        and     spirit      of<\/p>\n
manufacture.        [See United States v. International Paint Co.<\/p>\n
reported in 35 C.C.P.A. 87, C.A.D. 76]<\/p>\n
12.      Before     concluding,      we   may    once       again   refer     to   the<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in Tata Consultancy Services (supra) in<\/p>\n
which as stated above, it has been held that there is no<\/p>\n
difference    between     a   sale   of    software         programme    on    a   CD\/
\nFloppy and a sale of music on a CD\/ Cassette.                       Therefore, in<\/p>\n
our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Gramophone<\/p>\n
Co. of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta,<\/a> 114 ELT<\/p>\n
770 would apply.           In that case, the question which arose for<\/p>\n
determination       was    whether    recording    of   audio       cassettes    on<\/p>\n
duplicating music system amounts to manufacture.                       The answer<\/p>\n
was   in   the   affirmative.         It   was   held   that    a    blank    audio<\/p>\n
cassette is distinct and different from a pre-recorded audio<\/p>\n
cassette and the two have different use and name.                        Applying<\/p>\n
that test to the facts of the present case, we hold that a<\/p>\n
blank CD is different and distinct from a pre-recorded CD.                      In<\/p>\n
Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. (supra), it was held that an<\/p>\n
input\/ raw-material in the above process is a blank audio<\/p>\n
cassette.        It was further held that recording of an audio<\/p>\n
cassette on duplicating music system amounts to manufacture<\/p>\n
because blank audio cassette is distinct and different from<\/p>\n
pre-recorded audio cassette and the two have different uses<\/p>\n
and names.       In our view, the High Court was right in coming to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the judgment of this Court in Gramophone<\/p>\n
Co. of India Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts<\/p>\n
of the present case.            We may add that in the case of Tata<\/p>\n
Consultancy Services (supra), as stated above, it has been<\/p>\n
held that a software programme may consist of commands which<\/p>\n
enable     the   computer     to   perform    designated       task,    but,    the<\/p>\n
moment     copies    are    made     and   marketed,    they    become       goods.<\/p>\n
Therefore, applying the above judgment to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case, we are of the view that marketed copies are
\ngoods and if they are goods then the process by which they<\/p>\n
become goods would certainly fall within the ambit of Section<\/p>\n
80IA(12)(b)   read   with   Section    33B     because        an     industrial<\/p>\n
undertaking   has    been   defined    in    Section         33B      to      cover<\/p>\n
manufacture or processing of goods.\n<\/p>\n
13.    For the afore-stated reasons, we find no merit in the<\/p>\n
Civil Appeals filed by the Department, which are accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (S. H. Kapadia)<\/p>\n
                                                        ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (H.L. Dattu)<\/p>\n
                                                    ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                 (Surinder Singh Nijjar)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
January 13, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 Author: S Kapadia Bench: S.H. Kapadia, H.L. Dattu, Surinder Singh Nijjar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.No.235\/2010 @ SLP(C) No. 4719\/2008 Commr. of Income Tax-V, New Delhi … Appellant(s) versus M\/s. Oracle […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-27T17:33:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\\\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T17:33:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2634,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\\\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T17:33:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\\\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-27T17:33:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T17:33:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010"},"wordCount":2634,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010","name":"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T17:33:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commr-of-income-tax-vnew-delhi-vs-ms-oracle-software-india-ltd-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M\/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}