2009 (10) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts made by Reliance amounted only for purchase of copy righted articles and does not amount to 'Royalty' within the meaning of Article 12 (3) of DTAA. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has added the amount of Rs. 6,08,30,754/-twice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that interest u/s 234B is not payable by a non-resident whose entire income is subject to deduction of tax at source and in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the interest levied u/s. 234B of the Act." 2. The assessee, a non-resident company, is engaged in the business of developing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the meaning of Article 12 (3) of the DTAA. Accordingly it is held that the A.O. has wrongly held that the payment to be royalty. Accordingly appeal on grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 7 is allowed." 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and carefully perused the record. Admittedly, the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi, (Special Bench) in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269. Learned Departmental Representative made a feeble attempt to place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TATA Consultancy Servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax and again on the same day equivalent amount appears to have been paid towards 'software license-fees' on which 2.65% was deducted towards tax. It is not the case of either assessee-company or RIL that despite being assisted by a battery of consultants TDS was made twice inadvertently on the same amount and the assessee-company has meekly accepted without any protest. However, the learned CIT (A) merely accepted the contention of the assessee without verifying as to whether there were two payments of identical amount or only one payment. Upon hearing learned Departmental Representative as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assesses, we are of the opinion that in the interests of substantial justice the matter d....