Facts of the Case
The Revenue filed multiple appeals under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
concerning various assessment years. The dispute pertained to payments received
by Aspect Software Inc., a non-resident entity, for supply of customized
software and software licenses to Indian customers.
The Revenue contended that such payments constituted royalty
under the Income Tax Act and the Indo-US DTAA and were therefore taxable in
India. The ITAT, however, relying upon earlier Delhi High Court judgments, held
that the payments represented business receipts arising from sale of
copyrighted articles and not royalty.
The Revenue challenged this finding before the Delhi High
Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether
payment for supply of customized software amounts to “Royalty” under
Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961?
- Whether
interest under Section 234B can be levied on a non-resident where tax is
liable to be deducted at source by the payer?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue’s Contentions)
- The
Revenue argued that software licensing payments amounted to royalty
because the software was licensed and not sold outright.
- It
was contended that the software involved transfer of rights in
intellectual property and therefore attracted taxation under Section
9(1)(vi).
- The
Revenue further contended that the assessee was liable to pay advance tax
and consequential interest under Section 234B.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee’s Contentions)
- The
assessee contended that the transaction involved sale of a copyrighted
article and not transfer of copyright.
- It
argued that the software was integral to the product and merely enabled
functionality, without granting exploitation rights over the copyright.
- The
assessee relied upon Delhi High Court rulings in Ericsson AB and Infrasoft
Ltd., where similar payments were held not to be royalty.
- On
Section 234B, it was argued that since tax was deductible at source, no
liability for advance tax or interest could arise.
Court Findings / Observations
The Delhi High Court observed that the issue was already
settled by its earlier decisions in:
- Director
of Income Tax vs Ericsson AB
- Director
of Income Tax vs Infrasoft Ltd.
- Commissioner
of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs ZTE Corporation
The Court reiterated that where software is supplied to enable
operation of hardware or software products without transfer of copyright
rights, the payment is consideration for sale of a copyrighted article and not
royalty.
The Court clarified that mere licensing terminology or
separate invoicing does not alter the real character of the transaction.
On Section 234B, the Court followed its earlier precedent and
held that no interest liability arises where withholding tax obligations are
cast upon the payer.
Court Order / Final Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and held:
- Payment
for supply of customized software does not constitute royalty under
Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA and Section 9(1)(vi).
- Such
receipts are taxable as business income, subject to existence of Permanent
Establishment (PE) in India.
- Interest
under Section 234B is not leviable where tax is deductible at source.
Important Clarifications
1. Software Payment ≠ Royalty (Automatic Rule Not
Applicable)
Payment for software is not royalty merely because it is
licensed. Substance of transaction is determinative.
2. Copyrighted Article vs Copyright Right
Sale of software copy does not amount to transfer of
copyright.
3. DTAA Protection Prevails
Where treaty provisions are beneficial, they prevail over
domestic law.
4. Section 234B Relief for Non-Residents
Where payer has withholding obligation, non-resident recipient
cannot be saddled with advance tax interest liability.
Sections Involved
- Section
9(1)(vi), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Royalty Income
- Section
234B, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Interest for Default in
Advance Tax
- Section
260A, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appeal to High Court
- Article
12, India-USA DTAA – Royalties and Fees for Included
Services
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:8755-DB/SMD25042017ITA42017_162718.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment