2026 (6) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee is a company incorporated in the USA and is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing and distribution of software products. The assessee company entered into agreements with the distributors / resellers / customers in India for supplying the software products and ancillary support services. The assessee filed their return of income declaring a Nil income and also claimed a refund. The assessee's case was taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. During the scrutiny proceedings the AO asked for the details about the various payments received during the year from India whether the same was recognized as income or not. The AO also sought for the details about the reasons for not offering certain income for taxa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the sale of software could not be treated as royalty and ancillary support services could not be treated as FTS. The Ld.CIT(A) had extracted the finding of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2015-16 which was given by relying on the earlier orders of this Tribunal for the A.Y. 2016-17. In the earlier order of this Tribunal, the Tribunal had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA No. 7/2019 in the case of NICE Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 432 ITR 471 and on that basis, the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal relating to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11/05/2026. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the review applications by following the earlier order dated 23/04/2024 passed in the review petition (C) Diary No. 35475 /2023. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the revised grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and submitted that the order of the AO may be sustained. 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. We have perused the assessment order in which the AO had treated the sale of software products as royalty and also the sale of support services as FTS by relying on the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court judgments CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and CI....