Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Infosys Technologies Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9834-9837 OF 2013 With C.A. No. 9838-9840 OF 2013
Decided On : 01-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overruling of prior high court judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. high court did not analyze the tribunal's findings. (Para 2) |
| 3. order for remand to high court for re-examination. (Para 3) |
| 4. pending review petition may affect proceedings. (Para 4) |
| 5. disposition of appeals. (Para 5) |
| 6. disposal of pending applications. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
1. The impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore had relied on the earlier judgment of the High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’ [(2012) 345 ITR 494], which judgment has been set aside and overruled by this Court in the decision reported as Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [(2022) 3 SCC 321].
2. Before us, learned counsel for both parties have rightly stated that the facts, as found by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the authorities have not been analyzed by the High Court.
3. In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the impugned judgment with an order of remand to the High Court to re-examine the issue and the question of law. Parties would be entitled to raise all pleas and contentions, in accordance with law including reliance on the judgment in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra), and the contention of the Revenue that notwithstanding the said judgment, the payments would be covered under the head ‘Royalty’ etc.
4. We are informed that the Review Petition No. 1422/2021 titled “The Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation & Another v. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Etc.,” is pending. In case any order is passed, it will be open to the parties to rely upon the said order.
5. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The court ruled that remand orders by the ITAT for reassessing royalty issues were appropriate and subsequent adjudications made the appeal infructuous.
Payments for software deemed to be for copyrighted articles are not taxable as royalty, as established by precedent concerning copyright transfer under tax law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Supreme Court judgment in determining the classification of income under the 'royalty' definition.
Taxation of software sales classified as copyrighted articles is not subject to royalty under DTAA; remand for reassessment aligns with established legal precedents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
