https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220814 Reassessment was upheld because the AO had "reason to believe" escapement based on material showing the non-resident owned CDMA patents and the technology was used in India; adequacy or conclusiveness of material was irrelevant at that stage, so reopening stood. CIT(A)'s enhancement to include royalty from network equipment was sustained since that income stream was examined by the AO and was not a new source, permitting enhancement under s. 251. On taxability, royalty from non-resident OEMs for manufacturing handsets/network equipment abroad was held not taxable in India under s. 9(1)(vi)(c) because the OEMs did not carry on business in India and patent exploitation occurred where manufacturing took place; software was an inseparable copyrighted article, so no split royalty arose, and additions were deleted. Interest u/s 234A was mandatory, but 234B was not leviable. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220814 Reassessment was upheld because the AO had "reason to believe" escapement based on material showing the non-resident owned CDMA patents and the technology was used in India; adequacy or conclusiveness of material was irrelevant at that stage, so reopening stood. CIT(A)'s enhancement to include royalty from network equipment was sustained since that income stream was examined by the AO and was not a new source, permitting enhancement under s. 251. On taxability, royalty from non-resident OEMs for manufacturing handsets/network equipment abroad was held not taxable in India under s. 9(1)(vi)(c) because the OEMs did not carry on business in India and patent exploitation occurred where manufacturing took place; software was an inseparable copyrighted article, so no split royalty arose, and additions were deleted. Interest u/s 234A was mandatory, but 234B was not leviable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220814