TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agreement ("DTAA") between India and USA. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the DRP have erred in not appreciating that the payments received on sale of shrink-wrap software is for 'sale of copyrighted article' and not 'transfer of copyright right' as the end users in India obtained only a right to use the software products as against any copyright right. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in holding that software is a process or a property similar to patent, invention, design, secret formula, process, etc as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 5. The learned AO has erred in law in stating that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by way of insertion of Explanation 4 to the said section through Finance Act 2012 is applicable also to the definition of "Royalty" under Article 12 of the DTAA. 6. The Honourable DRP has erred in upholding the draft assessment order after rejecting the appellant's objections merely for the reason that the issue was decided against the appellant by the DRP in the earlier years, even as it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the tune of Rs. 26,87,30,378/-. Since the assessee was not satisfied that the proposal and direction of the DRP as well as assessment, therefore, the present appeal has been filed before us. ISSUE NO.1 TO 7:- 4. Issue no. 1 to 7 are interconnected, therefore, are being taken up together for adjudication. Under these issues, it is to be determined that the receipt from the sale of software products to clients in India through its distributor / reseller amounting to USD 6.05 millions is in the nature of royalty or not. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the case of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y.2002-03 in ITA No. 3095/Mum/2007 order dated 15th December 2009 and for the A.Y.2005-06 in ITA No.5097/Mum/2008 order dated 1st April 2010 and for A.Y.2006-07 in ITA No.3219/Mum/2010 order dated 08.02.2012 and for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.8721/Mum/2010 order dated 31.03.2016 and for A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.7790/Mum/2012 order dated 31.03.2016. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the direction of the DRP is wrong against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced below:- "5. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. There is nothing much that we can add to such a w ell researched and erudite order either. The decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, in favour of the revenue on this point, have already been dealt with in this order. As to what should be done in a situation in which there are conflicting views of Hon'ble non jurisdictional High Courts and in which we do not have the benefit of guidance from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we can only add, with respectful concurrence, the views expressed below by the coordinate benches: .....It will be wholly inappropriate for us to choose views of one of the High Courts based on our perceptions about reasonableness of the respective viewpoint, as such an exercise will be de facto amount to sitting in judgment over the views of the High Courts something diametrically opposed to the very basic principles of hierarchical judicial system. We have to, with our highest respect of both the Hon'le High Courts, adopt an objective criterion for deciding as to which of the Hon'ble High Court should be followed by us. 8. We fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. (supra) which is a latter decision and has discussed the Samsung case also has taken the view in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the identical view favouring the assessee in the case of DIT Vs. Nokia Network (supra) and in the case of DIT Vs. Ericson A.B. (supra) also. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs/ M/s. Ankit International, Sales Tax Appeal No.9 of 2011 vide order dated 15th September, 2011 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax V. Vegetable Product Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 and in Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Stte of U.P. (2008) 14 VST 259 (SC) : (2008) 5 S.C.C. 680 has held that, if two views in regard to the interpretation of a provision are possible, the Court would be justified in adopting that construction which favours the assessee. Reliance can also be placed in this regard on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and another Vs. M/s. Usha Martin Industries and another : (1997) 5 SSC 289. We accordingly adopt the construction in favour of the assessee. [Capgemini Business Services India Ltd. Vs. ....