The Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
High Court
22 Oct 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
Date of order
22 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
2002-2003
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
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
agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4828 OF 2010
The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)..Appellant.VersusSiemens Aktiengesellschaft..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Rajiv Singh with Mr.Sameer Chitnis i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 22[nd] October 2012
P.C. :
1.Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal,
relating to assessment year 2002-2003, reads thus :
i)Whether in law since software is not sold but is only licensed payment for use thereof received by the respondent constitutes payment for royalty taxable under the Act ?for use thereof received by the respondent constitutes payment for royalty taxable under the Act ?
ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act ? the ITAT was justified in deleting levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act ?
2.As regards second question is concerned, learned counsel for the
parties state that the said question stands answered against the revenue by
the decision of this Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) V/s. NGC Network Asia LLC Limited reported in (2009) 313 ITR 187 (Bom.). Hence, question (ii) cannot be entertained in this appeal.
3.The appeal is admitted on question (i).
(M.S. Sanklecha, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.