TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice under section 148 were valid; (ii) whether the assessee had a permanent establishment and business connection in India, making its income taxable in India under the Act and the DTAA; (iii) whether the amount attributable to software embedded in the supplied equipment could be taxed as royalty; and (iv) whether interest under section 234B was leviable or required fresh consideration.
Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice under section 148 were valid.
Analysis: The material gathered in the survey, including documents and statements, indicated that the assessee had income taxable in India which had not been voluntarily returned. The filing of a return only in response to the notice under section 148 supported the existence of escapement of income and the existence of a basis for reopening.
Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was upheld and the assessee's challenge was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment and business connection in India, making its income taxable in India under the Act and the DTAA.
Analysis: The findings recorded showed active participation of the Indian subsidiary's employees and the assessee's employees in bidding, negotiation, conclusion of contracts, installation-related activities, and technical services. On those facts, the Tribunal accepted the existence of business connection and multiple forms of permanent establishment, including fixed place, installation, service, and dependent agent PE.
Conclusion: The challenge to taxability in India on the ground of absence of PE or business connection was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the amount attributable to software embedded in the supplied equipment could be taxed as royalty.
Analysis: The supply contract was treated as a single contract for equipment comprising both hardware and embedded software. The buyer received only a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use the software, without any transfer of copyright rights. Applying the jurisdictional precedent, the embedded software formed part of the copyrighted article and not royalty consideration.
Conclusion: The software component could not be taxed as royalty, and the matter was directed to be recomputed as business income.
Issue (iv): Whether interest under section 234B was leviable or required fresh consideration.
Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the issue depended on the assessee's stand and the effect of the relevant jurisdictional rulings, and that the lower authorities had not considered the later decision cited before it. The question was therefore sent back for reconsideration after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The levy of interest under section 234B was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only in part. The reassessment challenge and PE related objections failed, the software royalty addition was deleted for recomputation as business income, and the interest issue was remanded for fresh decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Embedded software supplied as part of a single equipment contract, where no copyright rights are transferred and only a limited licence to use is granted, is not royalty but forms part of the sale of a copyrighted article.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
