+ Ita 322/2018, C.m. Appl.10805/2018+ Ita 326/2018+ Ita 330/2018, C.m. Appl.10809/2018The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation-2 v. Nortel Network India International Inc
High Court
20 Mar 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
+ Ita 322/2018, C.m. Appl.10805/2018+ Ita 326/2018+ Ita 330/2018, C.m. Appl.10809/2018The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation-2 v. Nortel Network India International Inc
Date of order
20 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In + Ita 322/2018, C.m. Appl.10805/2018+ Ita 326/2018+ Ita 330/2018, C.m. Appl.10809/2018The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation-2 v. Nortel Network India International Inc, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal under Section 9, Section 234B, Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of this, it is held that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~49, 53 and 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 322/2018, C.M. APPL.10805/2018+ ITA 326/2018+ ITA 330/2018, C.M. APPL.10809/2018THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2 ..... Appellant + ITA 326/2018+ ITA 330/2018, C.M. APPL.10809/2018THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2 ..... Appellant
versus
NORTEL NETWORK INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC...... Respondent Through : Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel, for Revenue. Through : Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel, for Revenue.
Sh. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Advocates, for Respondents in Item Nos 49, 53 and 57.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R% 20.03.2018
%
Three questions of law are urged in these sets of appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter “the 1961 Act”]. First, with respect to the existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) of the respondent in India; second with respect to the Revenue’s claim that notwithstanding question no.1, the assessee was not covered by the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in question (Indo-US DTAA) as it was not entitled to claim the benefits under DTAA, and lastly, Section 234B of the 1961 Act applied to the facts of the case. All these issues concededly are covered in the order of this Court for Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 and other years [Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT386 ITR 353 (Del)].
The additional question that is sought to be urged by the Revenue in ITA 326/2018 is that the outgoings towards embedded softwares constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the 1961 Act. This question too has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. ZTE Corporation 392 ITR 80 (Del). No substantial question of law arises on this aspect too.
In view of this, it is held that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
MARCH 20, 2018/ajk
A. K. CHAWLA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue