Ita/835/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Wipro Healthcare It Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATBKD THIS THER DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| ITA No.835/ 200 BETWEEN 1.The Commissioner ot Income-tax Central Circle C R Building Queens Road| Bangalore. 2.The Assistant Commissioner ot Income-Tax Circle-12(5) C R Building, Queens Road Bangalore. ..Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND M/s. Wipro Healthcare IT Ltd.,Dodakannellisarjapur Road Bangalore-560 O30. ... Responde (By Smt. 8.R. Anuradha, Advocate) This Income-tax appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income-tax Act,1961, to set aside the order passedby the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.4/BNG/2008, dated17.07.2009, and confirm the order passed by theAppellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(5),.Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. This appeal coming on for Hearing this day,N.K. Patil, J.,delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is by the revenue questioning the)correctness of the order dated 17.7.2009 passed in ITA|No.4/BNG/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate|Tribunal, Bangalore and confirm the order passed by the|Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the|Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 12[9|,|Bangalore, to consider the following substantial question oflaw. ‘Whether the Appellate Authorities were|correct in holding that the payments made by the.assessee of Rs.18,05,760/- for obtaining Sql CalLicense for a right to use the software product|under an agreement cannot be treated as royaltypayment and consequently TDS under Section|40/a/[1] of the Act was not mandatory and_deduction should be allowed?”| 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the|appellantsandlearnedcounselappearingforthe respondent. 3,At|theoutset,learnedCounselfor.therespondent submitted that in view of the Circular bearingNo.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, since the subject matter is less than Rs.20 lakhs, the appeal is not maintainable beforethis Court. 4In reply, learned Counsel for the appellants doesnot dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for|the respondent. 5.Submission of learned counsel for the parties isplaced on record. 6,This appeal is disposed of, following the circular|bearing No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Ordered accordingly. AN/- Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE