2017 (4) TMI 1461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as under: Ground No. 1: Erroneous treatment of Business Income as Royalty Income 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Deputy Director of Income- tax (International Tax) - 3(1) ('Ld. DDIT') has erred in treating and further the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming entire payments received by the Appellant from customers in India during the captioned year are taxable as "royalty" under Section 9(1)( vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Article 12 of India - Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Ground No. 2: -Erroneous charging of interest under Sections 234B of the Act Rs. 13,871,528/- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wn case against the assessee in ITA No. 7101/Mum/2010 vide order dated. July 24th, 2013. Operating portion of the tribunals order read as under:  "The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court considered a case in which Wipro Limited made payment to the assessee and the same has been held to be in the nature of 'royalty', liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 195. The Hon'ble High Court noticed in the penultimate para of the judgment that: "the payment made by the respondent to M/s. Gartner, which is a non-resident company, would amount to 'royalty' and wherefore, there is a statutory obligation on the part of the respondent to make tax deduction ". The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal cannot be adopted i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rent. Hence be submitted the said case law is not applicable to the facts of the assessee‟s case. 3.4 We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that this tribunal has consistently decided the issue against the assessee in earlier assessment years. The assessee is in appeal before the Hon‟ble High court. Now the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is pleading that there is a Bombay High court decision according to which the issue should be decided in favour of the assessee. This decision was said to have been not cited before the tribunal earlier on several occasions by mistake. We note that assessee has not filed any miscellaneous petition for recall of the earlier Tribunal order on the ground that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... NGC Network Asia LLC [2009] 222 CTR (Bom.) 86 [2014] 48 taxmann.com 67 (Bombay) Director of Income tax (International Taxation)-ll, Mumbai v. Haldor Topsoe. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 54 (Bombay) Director of Income Tax,(IT)-1 v. WNS Global Services (UK) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 38 (Bombay) Director of Income Tax (International taxation) v. Krupp Udhe GMBH. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 173 (Bom.) director of Income tax(international Taxation) v. Xelo Pty. Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi) Director of Income-tax, International Taxation v. GE Packaged Power Inc. [2010 194 Taxman 495 (Delhi) Director of Income Tax v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/Mitsubishi Corporation. [2014 49 taxmann.co....