- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
ITAT provides relief to Microsoft
While allowing TDS credit in accordance with the law, the bench held the sale of cloud services did not give rise to royalty income
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly allowed an appeal of the Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd relating to a Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) claim.
The assessee, Microsoft Regional, incorporated in the US, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, USA. It is engaged in the business of distribution of Microsoft products in the Asia Pacific region, including India.
The assessee filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) claiming a TDS of Rs.381,22,30,714 and a revised return claiming the same income of Rs.204,90,61,907, but claiming the TDS of Rs.392,67,91,700 filed on 31 March 2105.
The case was selected for scrutiny and the notices were issued. A final assessment order was passed in January 2017 under the Income Tax Act against the assessee. As per the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4064,82,52,315.
An amount of Rs.3859,91,90,408 was assessed as 'royalty' and Rs.204,90,61,907 as 'interest' in the income tax refund disclosed in the ITR. The royalty income was taxed at a 10 percent rate. While surcharge and education cess were charged as applicable limit under the IT Act after giving credit to pre-paid taxes.
On analysing, the bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) directed the assessing officer to allow the TDS credit in accordance with the law.
Since Microsoft also had an issue related to the cloud services, the bench held that the sale of the software product did not give rise to the royalty income.
Regarding the subscription to cloud services, the tribunal cited other similar cases. It held, "The authorities have erred in considering the subscription received towards the cloud serviced to be royalty income."



