Full Text
Translation output
$-4to 6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 898/2016,CM APPL.46316/201^6(Delay of90 days in filing)
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-!' . .....Appellant
Through:Mr.Rahul Chaudhary,Adv.
ITA 898/2016,CM APPL.46316/201^6(Delay of90 days in filing)
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-!' . .....Appellant
Through:Mr.Rahul Chaudhary,Adv.
VERSUS
COMPTELOYJ Respondent
Through:Mr.Prakash Kumar,Ms.Rashmi Sinha and , Mehvish Khan,Advs.
Through:Mr.Prakash Kumar,Ms.Rashmi Sinha and , Mehvish Khan,Advs.
ITA 899/2016,CM APPL.46317/2016(Delay of90 days in filing),CM
APPL.46318/2016(Exemption) ^
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(INTERNATION TAXATION)-
1 ' ....^Appellant
Through:Mr.Rahul Chaudhary,Adv.
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(INTERNATION TAXATION)-
1 ' ....^Appellant
Through:Mr.Rahul Chaudhary,Adv.
VERSUS
, ' ' COMPTELOYJ / .....Respondent
Through:Mr.Prakash Kuiriar,Ms.,Rashmi Sinha and
Mehvish Khan,Advs.
Through:Mr.Prakash Kuiriar,Ms.,Rashmi Sinha and
Mehvish Khan,Advs.
ITA 900/2016,CM APPL.46319/2016(Delay of90 daysin filing),CM
APPL.46320/2016(Exemption)
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(INTERNATION TAXATION)-
1 , ..... Appellant ; Through: Mr.Rahul Chaudhary,-Adv.
' ■ "
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(INTERNATION TAXATION)-
1 , ..... Appellant ; Through: Mr.Rahul Chaudhary,-Adv.
' ■ "
VERSUS
■ ' ■ ' ' ■ . ■ . ; ■
COMPTELOYJ , Respondent , ' Through:Mr.Prakash Kumar,Ms.Rashmi Sinha and
Mehvish Khan,Advs. ^
COMPTELOYJ , Respondent , ' Through:Mr.Prakash Kumar,Ms.Rashmi Sinha and
Mehvish Khan,Advs. ^
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
19.12.2016
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
19.12.2016
CM APPL.46316/2016(Delav of90 davsin filingVin ITA 898/2016
CM APPL.46317/2016(Delay of90 days in filing!in ITA 899/2016
CM APPL.46319/2016 CDelav of90 daysin filing)inITA 900/2016
2016:DHC:8405-DB For the reasons mentioned in the applications,the applications are allowed.
2016:DHC:8405-DB For the reasons mentioned in the applications,the applications are allowed.
CM APPL.46318/2016(Exemption)in ITA 899/2016
CM APPL.46320/2016(Exemption)in ITA 900/2016
X Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
X Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
ITA 898/2016,ITA 899/2016 &ITA 900/2016
The questions which the Revenue seeks to urge in these appeals under Section 260A of the Incpnie Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') are common,i.e., whether the amounts paid by the assessee to its licensors, amounted to royalty within the meaning ofthe expression under Section
9(l)(vi) and Article 12 ofthe Indo-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreement (DTAA). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) followed the previousjudgments ofthis Court including thejudgment in
DIT V. Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 and also the
The questions which the Revenue seeks to urge in these appeals under Section 260A of the Incpnie Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') are common,i.e., whether the amounts paid by the assessee to its licensors, amounted to royalty within the meaning ofthe expression under Section
9(l)(vi) and Article 12 ofthe Indo-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreement (DTAA). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) followed the previousjudgments ofthis Court including thejudgment in
DIT V. Infrasoft Ltd. 264 CTR 329 and also the
ORDER
- DIT
(International Taxation) vs. Nokia Networks OY 25 Taxman.com 255
(Delhi). The later decision had an occasion to interpret the same provision in the contextofthe very.same treaty.
Since the ITAT has followed the previous binding judgments of this Court,the present appeals do not raise a substantial question oflaw.
The Court is also satisfied that the application oflaw by the ITAT was sound and proper. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
S.RAVIl^RA BHAT,J NAJMIWAZIRI,J DECEMBER 19,2016/acm
2016:DHC:8405-DB
(International Taxation) vs. Nokia Networks OY 25 Taxman.com 255
(Delhi). The later decision had an occasion to interpret the same provision in the contextofthe very.same treaty.
Since the ITAT has followed the previous binding judgments of this Court,the present appeals do not raise a substantial question oflaw.
The Court is also satisfied that the application oflaw by the ITAT was sound and proper. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
S.RAVIl^RA BHAT,J NAJMIWAZIRI,J DECEMBER 19,2016/acm
2016:DHC:8405-DB