The Tribunal Was Right In Placing Reliance On The Decision Dated 15.10.2011Of This Hon’ble Court In The Decisions In Cit v. Synopsys International Old Ltd., ([2012] 28 Taxmann.com 162 [Kar.]) And Cit V. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,([2011]16 Taxmann.com 141) Though Appeal Against The

Digitally signedby ANUSHA VLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.603 OF 2019 BETWEEN: TALLY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.331-336, RAHEJA ARCADE 3 FLOOR, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR Ms. ANNAMMA THOMAS PAN NO: AACCT 3705E …APPELLANT (BY Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 12(4), BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA, 6 BLOCK BENGALURU-560 095. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA 6 BLOCK BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNCIL) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.153/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC. THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated April 30, 2019 in IT(TP)A.No.153/Bang/2014 passed by the ITAT[1], Bengaluru, for A.Y.2009-10 has been admitted to consider following questions of law: 1. The Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance made under Section 49(a)(ia) of the Act on the basis that the payments made by the Appellant to Tally Dubai towards purchase of software for resale constituted ‘royalty’ necessitating deduction of tax at source? 2. The Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the decision dated 15.10.2011of this Hon’ble Court in the decisions in CIT V. Synopsys International Old Ltd., ([2012] 28 taxmann.com 162 [Kar.]) and CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,([2011]16 taxmann.com 141) though appeal against the said judgments are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India? 3. The Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance made under Section 49(a)(ia) of the Act although the Appellant had not claimed any expense under Sections 30 to 36 of the Act? 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 4. The Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act although the payment was to a non-resident? 2. Heard Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned advocate for the assessee and Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. 3. Ms.Tanmayee submits that questions No.1 and 2 have been held against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another[2]. In view of the same, questions No.3 and 4 are rendered academic. 4. Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, in his usual fairness, does not dispute the above submission. 5. In view of the above, the following; ORDER (i)Appeal is allowed; (ii)Questions No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; (iii)Questions No.3 and 4 do not require any answer as they have been rendered academic; and (iv)Liberty is reserved to the Revenue to re-open this appeal based on the outcome of R.P.(C) No.1422-1497/2021 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. re-open this appeal based on the outcome of R.P.(C) No.1422-1497/2021 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE