Ita/94/2013 Of Synopsys International Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF JUNE 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA ITA.NO.94/2013 BETWEEN: Synopsys International Ltd., Block 1, Blanchardstown Corporate Park Blanchardstown, Dublin 15 Ireland Represented by its Director Mr.Charles Watchorn. … Appellant (By Sri.T.Suryanarayana for M/s. King & Pattridge, Advs.) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore-560 001. Queens Road, Bangalore-560 001. 2. The Deputy Director of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle II(1) Bangalore. Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle II(1) Bangalore. … Respondents (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv. ) This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 31.10.2012 passed in ITA No.550/Bang/2011, for the assessment year 2006-2007, praying to formulate substantial question of law stated therein and to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the ITAT dated 31.10.2012 in ITA No.550/Bang/2011 to the extent questioned therein. This ITA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T This appeal by the assessee under Section 260-A of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in ITA.No.550/Bangalore/2011. 2. The appellant has sought to raise the following substantial question of law viz., “whether, on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds urged, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby the order passed by the 2[nd]respondent in holding that the payments received by the appellant was ‘royalty’ under Article 12 of the applicable DTAA, and as defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1) (vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, giving rise to an income chargeable to tax in India?” 3. Sri.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first question raised in the memorandum of appeal is not germane for examination as substantial question of law. Second question as framed in para 9.2 quoted above, does arise for examination in this appeal. 4. However Sri. T.Suryanarayana, fairly submits that identical question had arisen in the case of sister concern of the assessee for the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and the question has been answered against the assessee by this Court as per the judgment dated 3.8.2010 passed in ITA.Nos.11 to 15 of 2008 and 17/2008. 5. Learned standing counsel for the Department submits that it is so. 6. Sri. T.Suryanarayana, however requests that the matter to be kept pending after admission to await the decision of the Supreme Court as in the earlier case, the assessee has taken the matter to the Supreme Court by seeking special leave to appeal. Question having been already answered by this Court it is not necessary to keep this appeal pending. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed answering the substantial question of law at para 9.2 quoted in the beginning of the order against the assessee. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE RS/*