Facts of the Case
The Revenue preferred appeals under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),
whereby the Tribunal held that the consideration received by Aspect Software
Inc. from Indian customers for supply/licensing of customized software was not
taxable as “royalty.”
The Revenue contended that the software licensing arrangement
involved transfer of rights in copyright and therefore attracted royalty
taxation under the Income Tax Act and the Indo-US DTAA.
The ITAT relied upon earlier judicial precedents, particularly
Ericsson AB and Infrasoft Ltd., and held that the transaction
involved mere transfer of copyrighted articles and not copyright rights.
Aggrieved by this finding, the Revenue approached the Delhi High Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether
payment received for supply of customized software constitutes Royalty
under Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the
Income Tax Act?
- Whether
the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 234B of the
Income Tax Act?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue’s Contentions)
- The
Revenue argued that software supplied by the assessee involved licensing
of intellectual property rights.
- It
was submitted that consideration paid by Indian customers amounted to
royalty under Article 12(3)/(4) of the DTAA.
- Revenue
contended that the ITAT erred in not treating such receipts as royalty
income taxable in India.
- Revenue
also challenged the ITAT’s findings regarding non-applicability of Section
234B interest.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee’s Contentions)
- The
assessee argued that software transactions were merely sale of copyrighted
articles and not transfer of copyright.
- It
was submitted that customers only obtained a limited right to use the
software and no exploitation rights in copyright were transferred.
- Reliance
was placed on Delhi High Court judgments in Ericsson AB and Infrasoft
Ltd.
- It
was contended that receipts constituted business income and could be taxed
in India only if there existed a Permanent Establishment (PE).
- Regarding
Section 234B, the assessee argued that no advance tax liability arose
where tax was deductible at source.
Court Findings / Court Order
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and
upheld the ITAT’s order.
Findings on Royalty Issue
The Court held that:
- Supply
of customized software does not amount to transfer of copyright rights.
- It
constitutes sale of copyrighted articles.
- Consideration
received cannot be classified as royalty under Article 12 of the Indo-US
DTAA or Section 9(1)(vi).
- The
issue was squarely covered by the Court’s earlier decisions in Ericsson
AB, Infrasoft Ltd., and ZTE Corporation.
Findings on Section 234B
The Court held that:
- Interest
under Section 234B was not leviable in the present case.
- The
issue stood covered by the judgment in GE Packaged Power Inc.
Accordingly, both questions were answered in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue.
Important Clarification
This judgment reaffirms the distinction between:
- Transfer
of copyright rights (Royalty)
and - Transfer
of copyrighted articles (Business Income)
The Court clarified that mere software licensing for end-use,
without transfer of underlying copyright rights, does not constitute royalty.
This principle is significant in cross-border software taxation matters.
Sections Involved
- Section
9(1)(vi), Income Tax Act, 1961
- Section
234B, Income Tax Act, 1961
- Section
260A, Income Tax Act, 1961
- Article
12, Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
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