TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regarding disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payments made by assessee to U.S company towards purchase of software as royalty. Admittedly, all the appeals under consideration has common issues and facts are identical. We are therefore disposing these appeals by way of a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience we reproduce grounds of appeal in on the facts, for assessment year 2007-08 as under: 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Incometax [Appeals] -1, Bengaluru, dated 19/07/2019 for the impugned assessment year 2007 - 08, in so far as it is against the Appellant is against law, equity, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellant denies itself ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and any payment made for stock in trade which comes under the purview of section 28 of the Act and consequently the disallowance provision under section 40 of the Act is inapplicable, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies itself liable to be charged with interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The calculation of interest under section 234 B is not in accordance with law as the rate, period, amount and method for calculating interest is not discernable from the order of assessment and further the interest calculation is not in accordance with the provisions of section 234 B [1] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s however the Ld.AO while passing the draft assessment order made disallowance of Rs. 14,99,11,553/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4. Ld.CIT(A) while considering the issue in light of submissions made by assessee, upheld the disallowance made by the Ld.AO by following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in assessee's own case reported in (2012) 23 taxmann.com 344 for assessment year 2003-04. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that Hon'ble court followed the decision of its coordinate bench in case of CIT vs Samsung Electronics Pvt.Ltd. reported in (2011) 203 taxman 477. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 2.5. Admittedly the issue in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. 170. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems (AAR) (supra) is set aside. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Delhi are dismissed." 2.6. It has been submitted that present assessee has been one of the petitione....