Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
No Records Found
Page of 4316
1 to 20 of 86308 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 3000
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld ITAT's determination that payments to three...
Software Sales to End-Users Not Royalty Under Section 9(1)(vi): Payments for Copyrighted Articles Distinct from Copyright Transfer
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Plus +
Source NTF
AI Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
https://www.taxtmi.com/hi...
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
ExpandCollapse
Income TaxFebruary 20, 2025Case LawsHC
HC upheld ITAT's determination that payments to three non-resident companies did not constitute 'royalty' under applicable DTAA. Court rejected Revenue's reliance on overruled Samsung Electronics precedent and aligned with Engineering Analysis SC ruling. HC clarified that sale of copyrighted software to end-users does not amount to transfer of copyright owner's exclusive rights, distinguishing between sale of copyrighted articles and transfer of copyright itself. Interpretation of Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act must be harmonized with DTAA provisions. The matter was resolved in favor of assessee, confirming no TDS liability under Section 195 for the disputed payments.
HC upheld ITAT's determination that payments to three non-resident companies did not constitute 'royalty' under applicable DTAA. Court rejected Revenue's reliance on overruled Samsung Electronics precedent and aligned with Engineering Analysis SC ruling. HC clarified that sale of copyrighted software to end-users does not amount to transfer of copyright owner's exclusive rights, distinguishing between sale of copyrighted articles and transfer of copyright itself. Interpretation of Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act must be harmonized with DTAA provisions. The matter was resolved in favor of assessee, confirming no TDS liability under Section 195 for the disputed payments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.