SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2 - Appellant
Versus
Micro Focus Ltd. - Respondent
ITA 52 of 2022
Decided On : 15-03-2022




The High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that software receipts are not taxable as royalty under the India-UK DTAA, following binding Supreme Court precedent.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 260A - Taxation of receipts from software sales - ITAT held receipts are not taxable as royalty under the India-UK DTAA - Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) not applicable without considering relevant Circulars - The Revenue's assertions were covered by Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre. (Paras 2-5)

(B) Judicial discipline - High Court is obliged to follow binding decisions of the Supreme Court, irrespective of pending review petitions. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging ITAT's findings on software receipts not being taxable as royalty. The issues presented were subsequently resolved in a prior Supreme Court decision.

Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed that the ITAT had ruled correctly based on Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing compliance with established judicial authority.

Issues: (1) Whether ITAT correctly ruled on taxation of software receipts; (2) Applicability of Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi); (3) Interpretation of copyright implications for software sales; (4) Revenue's claim regarding use of software by licensees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the Supreme Court's ruling binds the High Court, asserting no substantial question existed for review, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenging itat's ruling on software taxation. (Para 1)
2. reference to supreme court decision is binding. (Para 2 , 3)
3. judicial discipline mandates following apex court ruling. (Para 4)
4. appeal dismissed as no substantial question arises. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 challenging the judgment and order dated 04th November, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `D', New Delhi. The questions of law sought to be agitated by the appellant-Revenue in the present appeal are reproduced hereinbelow:-

    "A. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in holding that receipts of the assessee from sale of software is not taxable as royalty under the India-UK DTAA?

    B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding the Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not apply to India-UK DTAA without considering the fact that Explanation 4 is reiteration of legislature view already expressed in Circular No.588 dated 2nd January, 1991 and Circular No.621 dated 19th December, 1991 which were issued prior to entry into force of India-UK DTAA?"

    C. Whether the ITAT erred in not holding receipts of assessee as Royalty though as per Section 14(b)(ii) of India copyright Act selling or giving on commercial rent any copy of computer programme is copyright?

    D. Whether the ITAT erred in not appreciating that receipts by the assessee is ultimately due to use of software by end users and users use the software only as licensee?"

2. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the aforesaid questions of law are covered by the decision dated 02nd March, 2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 159.

3. He, however, states that the Revenue has preferred a review petition against the said order. He states that the present appeal has been filed to keep the matter alive.

4. Judicial discipline mandates that the High Court is bound to follow the judgment and order of the Apex Court till it is set aside. The mere fact that the appellant-Revenue has filed a review application will not be a ground for the High Court to not follow the binding judgment of the Apex Court.

5. Consequently, as the issues of law raised in the present appeal have been conclusively decided in favour of the respondent-assessee by the Supreme Court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top