Facts of the Case
The Revenue preferred appeals under Section 260A of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) for multiple assessment years concerning the taxability of payments
received by Aspect Software Inc., a non-resident entity, for supply of
customized software to Indian customers. The core dispute pertained to whether
such receipts were taxable as “royalty” under Article 12 of the Indo-US Double
Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and
whether interest under Section 234B was leviable. The ITAT had held in favour
of the assessee, following earlier judicial precedents.
Issues Involved
- Whether
payment received for supply of customized software amounts to royalty
under Article 12(3)/(4) of the Indo-US DTAA read with Section 9(1)(vi) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961?
- Whether
interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is leviable on a
non-resident assessee in such circumstances?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue’s Contentions)
- The
Revenue contended that the consideration received from Indian customers
for supply/licensing of software constituted royalty.
- It
was argued that the software license involved rights in copyright and
therefore attracted taxability under Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA.
- The
Revenue further argued that interest under Section 234B was leviable for
default in payment of advance tax.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee’s Contentions)
- The
assessee contended that the transaction was merely for sale of copyrighted
articles and not transfer of copyright rights.
- It
was argued that the software was supplied as part of a product and did not
confer any copyright exploitation rights upon the end users.
- Reliance
was placed on the judgments in Ericsson A.B. and Infrasoft Ltd.,
wherein similar payments were held not to constitute royalty.
- Regarding
Section 234B, it was argued that where tax was deductible at source,
advance tax liability could not be imposed on the non-resident.
Court Findings
The Delhi High Court observed that the issue was squarely
covered by its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (International
Taxation)-2 vs ZTE Corporation, wherein identical questions had been
decided in favour of the assessee.
The Court reaffirmed that:
- Supply
of software enabling operation of hardware does not amount to transfer of
copyright.
- Mere
licensing terminology or separate invoicing does not alter the real
character of the transaction.
- Payment
for software in such circumstances constitutes consideration for purchase
of copyrighted articles and not royalty.
On Section 234B, the Court followed Director of Income Tax
vs GE Packaged Power Inc. and held that interest under Section 234B was not
leviable where tax deduction obligations rested upon the payer.
Court Order / Final Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and
upheld the ITAT’s order.
Held:
- Payment
for supply of customized software does not constitute royalty under
Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the
Income-tax Act.
- Interest
under Section 234B was not leviable on the non-resident assessee in the
facts of the case.
Important Clarification
This judgment reiterates the distinction between:
- Transfer
of copyright rights (taxable as royalty), and
- Transfer
of copyrighted articles (business receipts).
The Court clarified that merely granting a software license
for use without transferring copyright ownership or exploitation rights does
not attract royalty taxation. Further, where withholding tax mechanism applies,
Section 234B interest cannot be fastened upon the non-resident recipient.
Sections Involved
- Section
260A – Appeal to High Court
- Section
9(1)(vi) – Royalty Income
- Section
234B – Interest for Default in Payment of Advance Tax
- Article
12 of Indo-US 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