Bangalore560 035 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACW0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Srinivasan, P.V., A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.10.2020 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 03052017 passed by Ld CIT(A)12, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 201011. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the demand raised u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Incometax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] by the AO treating the assessee as an assessee in default. 2. The facts relating to the issue are discussed in brief. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.6,39,09,422/ ITA No.581 /Bang/2019 Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 13 towards subscription charges to M/s Gartner group. It is noticed that M/s Gartner group is engaged in the business of generating research products, which include qualitative research and analysis. The said products are useful for the information technology companies in their business. M/s Gartner group issues licenses for using its data base. The assessee has subscribed the license and accordingly, it has made the above said payment to M/s Gartner group. 3. The AO took the view that the payment so made by the assessee for getting the license to use data base of M/s Gartner group is in the nature of royalty. In this regard, the AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd (order dated 15102011 in ITA No.2988 of 2005 along with the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 494)), wherein it was held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that the payments made to Gartner group towards subscription charges to access data base and research products is in the nature of royalty both under the provisions of Income tax Act and DTAA. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee is an assessee in default in view of the failure to deduct tax at source from the payments so made. Accordingly, he raised demand of Rs.2,02,41,711/ u/s 201(1) of the Act and interest demand of Rs.1,94,32,043/ u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has been making identical payments year after year. The AO had raised demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act in the earlier years also and the same was challenged by the assessee in AY 200102, 200203 and 2003 04 by filing appeals before the Tribunal. He submitted that the co ordinate bench, vide its order dated 30122004 passed in ITA ITA No.581 /Bang/2019 Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 13 No.152 to 154/Bang/2004 (2005)(278 ITR (AT) 57)(Bang.), has held that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to M/s Gartner group is not liable for taxation in India and hence the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to M/s Gartner Group u/s 195 of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has cancelled the demand raised u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) in the above said years. Hence the assessee, backed by the order of the Tribunal, was under bonafide belief that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to Gartner Group. 5. He submitted that the revenue challenged the above said decision rendered by ITAT by filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The jurisdictional High Court, vide