TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 9, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is bad in law. GROUND RELATING TO SECTION 201: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in; a) Not appreciating the fact that, the requirement for withholding tax on purchase of software was mandated vide Finance Act 2012 as well as Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 203 Taxman 477 (Karnataka), which were not in force when the Appellant complied with TDS provisions. The Appellant was therefore not required to deduct tax at source at the time of purchase of software license; b) Not appreciating the fact that, the impugned payments are towards purchase of computer softwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 201(IA). The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law. The Appellant prays accordingly." ITA No. 2020/B/2019 "1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is bad in law. GROUND RELATED TO PENALTY U/S 271(l)(C): 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in; a)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome- tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law. The Appellant prays accordingly. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Assessee is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, manufacturing, supplying, trading, sub contracting, installation and commissioning and after sales services for largescale filtration system and fermentation system. During the year under consideration assessee purchased computer software from both residents and non-resident vendor is. The computer software purchased was capitalise on the books of accounts and depreciation thereon was claimed by assessee in the return of income. Assessment order was passed under section 143 (3) on 21/03/2014 wherein a disallowance was made under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 201(1) and (1A) could not be applicable to the year under consideration. 8. Ld.CIT(A) concluded that, assessee should have deducted TDS under section 195(2) by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd., & Ors. (Supra). 9. In appeal filed against order passed by Ld. AO under section 271C, Ld.CIT(A) upheld action of Ld.AO by holding that, assessee could not establish a reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax. He relied on order of Hon'ble kerala High Court in case of CIT vs Muthoot Bankers (Aryasala), reported in (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 110. 10. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us now. ITA No. 2019/B/2019 11. Assessee is aggrieved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant time: (a) Teekays Interior Solutions P Ltd (ITA No.400/Bang/2017) (b) Infineon Technologies India P Ltd (IT(TP)A No.405/Bang/2015) (c) GE Medical Systems India P Ltd (ITA 1368/Bang/2019) (d) WS Atkins India P Ltd (2015)(41 ITR(T) 397)(Bang. Trib) Subsequently, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd(supra) held that the payments made for purchase of software was in the nature of royalty and the said decision came to be pronounced on 15.10.2011. Accordingly, the present facts of case assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of payments made for purchase of licensed software prior to 15.10.2011, being the date of pronouncement of the decision in the case of Samsung Electr....