Ita/99/2017 Of Technicolor India Private v. Income-Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE JZOTH DAY OF MARCH 2707 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’/BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL LT.A. NO.99 OF 2017 BETWEEN: TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATELIMITED(FORMERLY PAPRIKAS INTERACTIVE ~SERVICES P. LTD) LEVEL 9, NAVIGATOR BUILDINGTTPL WHITEFIELD ROADBANGALORE 560 Q66|REPRESENTED BYMS. MILI CHOWDHARY>DIRECTOR..... APPELLAN[ (BY MR. SURYANARAYANA T, ADV.,) AND* 1.|INCOME-TAX OFFICER. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(3)_ BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD. 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA|BANGALORE 560 O95.BANGALORE 560 O95. 2 |PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF| INCOME-TAX-1 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD. 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA|BANGALORE 560 O95. (BY MR. DILEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR) MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) | .. RESPONDENTS THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. J6O0-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 PASSEDIN ITA NO.949 TO 952/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2008-09 & 2009-10, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE,INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED: O7.10.2016 IN ITA.NO.949 TO 952/BANG/2012 (ANNEXURE-C) (il)PASS SUCH OTHER OR SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS|HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT ON THE FACTS AND IN.THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF.JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ILT.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee. Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind,|jearned counsel for the revenue. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has| been filed by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Theappeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2018 on the following substantial questions oflaw: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right iIn_ placinreliance on the Judgment of this Hon’bie Court.also in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,in ITA No.Z808 of JZOOQ5 dated 15.10.701[2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar), though the said.judgment of this Hon'ble Court had not been)accepteaqand.theCivilAppealInC.A.No.10109/2013IS|pendingbeforethe Hon'ble Supreme Court? ?.Whether, on the facts, in the circumstances.and on the grounds urged, the Tribunal was)right or Justified in confirming the order passed|by the ist respondent by holding tnat the.payments made by the appellant was ‘royalty as |defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi)|of the Income-tax Act 1961, and under theapplicable DTAAs, giving rise to an income.chargeable to tax in India and necessitating|deduction of tax under Section 195 of the Act?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the issue Involved Inthis appeal is covered by the judgment dated 08.03.2021|passed in ITA No.308/2018. 3 Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to.dispute the aforesaid submission. 4. For the reasons assigned in the judgment renderedby the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8/733-34/2018 videorder dated 02.03.2021 as well as in the judgment dated08.03.2021 passed in ITA No.308/2018, the substantialquestions of law involved in this appeal are answered in|favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated07.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ishereby quashed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE