Please click on the categories to the right to find what you are looking for. Click on this icon to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from Foxit 1.8 MB or from Adobe 20MB.

(194.5 KiB, 1,570 DLs)

Download: kansai_nerolac_software_TDS.pdf

Fee for software is NOT royalty & TDS u/s 195 not required

 

The assessee applied to the AO for a NOC u/s 195(2) for remittance of a fee to IXOS Software, Singapore, to acquire software. The assessee claimed that the fee was commercial profits and not taxable in the hands of the recipient under Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA as the recipient did not have a PE in India. The AO & CIT (A) took the view that as the software was a “copyright” / “secret process” and the assessee had merely acquired a ‘non-exclusive & non-transferable’ license to use the software and as the Singapore Company continued to be the owner of the software, the fee constituted “royalty” under s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the DTAA and that it was chargeable to tax in India. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

 

The effect of the judgements in Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of AP 271 ITR 401 (SC), Samsung Electronics Co 94 ITD 91 (Bang), Motorola Inc 95 ITD 269 (SB) & Dassault Systems 229 CTR 105 (AAR) is that the primary condition for coming within the definition of ‘royalty’ is that the payment must be received as consideration for the use of or right to use any copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work etc. A ‘right to use the copyright’ is totally different from the ‘right to use the programme embedded in a CD’. In acquiring a ready made off-the-shelf computer programme, no right was granted to the assessee to utilize the copyright of the computer programme. The assessee had merely purchased a copy of the copyrighted article, namely, a computer programme which is called ‘software’. Computer software when put into a media and sold becomes goods like any other audio cassette or painting on canvas or book. Accordingly, the amount paid by the assessee towards purchase of the software cannot be treated as payment of “royalty” so as to be taxable in India under Article 12 of the DTAA and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.

 

Note: The same view has been taken in Velankani Mauritius vs. DDIT (ITAT Bangalore) after considering CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 227 CTR 335 (Kar).

Related Judgements

  1. New Skies Satellites vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    The provision of the transponder through which the telecasting companies are able to uplink the desired images/data and downlink the same in the desired area is a “process”. To constitute “royalty”, it is not necessary that the process should be a “secret process”. The fact there is…

  2. ADIT vs. Valentine Maritime (Mauritius) (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For computing the threshold time limit under Article 5(2)(i), the activities of a foreign enterprise on a particular site or a particular project etc have to be seen and not on all the activities in a tax jurisdiction as whole. Each building site, construction project, assembly project or…

  3. Ashapura Minichem vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument that in using the words “in the Contracting State”, Article 12(4) incorporates the “place of performance test” and negates the “source rule” and that services rendered offshore are not taxable is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, because the expression “provision for services” is wider than the…

Comments are closed.