{"id":1819,"date":"2010-07-07T22:26:58","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T16:56:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=1819"},"modified":"2010-07-07T22:26:58","modified_gmt":"2010-07-07T16:56:58","slug":"velankani-mauritius-vs-ddit-itat-bangalore-profits-from-supply-of-shrink-wrapped-software-is-not-royalty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/velankani-mauritius-vs-ddit-itat-bangalore-profits-from-supply-of-shrink-wrapped-software-is-not-royalty\/","title":{"rendered":"Velankani Mauritius vs. DDIT (ITAT Bangalore)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=220\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=220&varname2=Velankani_Mauritius_software_royalty.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (Velankani_Mauritius_software_royalty.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>Profits from supply of &#8216;shrink-wrapped&#8217; software is not &#8216;royalty&#8217; <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee, a Mauritius company, was engaged in supply of software. It supplied &#8220;<em>off-the-shelf<\/em>&#8221; &#8220;<em>shrink-wrapped<\/em>&#8221; software to Infosys Technologies and took the view that the profits there from was not taxable in India as it did not have a Permanent Establishment in India.  The AO assessed the profits as <strong>royalty <\/strong>u\/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act and this was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: <\/p>\n<p>(i) In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-samsung-electronics-karnataka-high-court-s-195-201-liability-cannot-be-avoided-on-ground-of-non-taxability-of-recipient\">CIT vs. Samsung Electronics<\/a><\/strong> 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has <strong>confined<\/strong> its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u\/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that <strong>it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India<\/strong>. <\/p>\n<p>(ii) On the question whether income from supply of software can be assessed as royalty, in <strong>Motorola Inc vs. DCIT<\/strong> 95 ITD 269, the Delhi Special Bench held that <strong>the crux of the issue was whether the payment was for a copyright or for a copyrighted article. If it was for a copyright, it had to be classified as &#8216;Royalty&#8217; under the Act and the DTAA. If it was for a copyrighted article, then it only represented the purchase price of an article and could not be considered as Royalty<\/strong> either under the Act or under the DTAA. This principle was upheld by the AAR in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/airports-authority-vs-dit-aar\">Airports Authority of India<\/a><\/strong> and the ITAT in <strong>Sonata Software<\/strong> 6 SOT 700 and it was held that the <strong>payments partook the character of purchase and sale of goods; and as there is no PE in India, no income accrued or deemed to accrue or arise in India<\/strong>. Immense support can be drawn from <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/www.indiankanoon.org\/doc\/428977\/\">Tata Consultancy Services v. State of AP<\/a><\/strong> 271 ITR 401 (SC) where it was held that though copyright in a software programme may remain with the originator of the programme, <strong>the moment copies are made and marketed, it becomes goods which are assessable to sales-tax<\/strong>. It was held that <strong>even intellectual property become &#8220;goods&#8221; once put to a media<\/strong> whether in the form of books or computer disks or cassettes. Accordingly, profits on sale of software cannot be assessed as royalty either under the Act or under the DTAA. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee Also <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/van-oord-acz-india-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-the-obligation-to-deduct-the-tax-at-source-us-195-1-arises-only-when-the-payment-is-chargeable-to-tax-samsung-electronics-not-followed\">Van Oord<\/a><\/strong> &#038; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ito-vs-ms-prasad-production-itat-chennai-special-bench-s-195-1-tds-obligation-does-not-arise-if-the-payment-is-not-chargeable-to-tax-samsung-electronics-not-followed\">Prasad Productions<\/a><\/strong> 3 ITR (Trib) 58 Che (SB) where <strong>Samsung Electronics<\/strong> was not followed. Click here for <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/samsung-electronics-supreme-court-final-hearing-on-18-08-2010\/\">info on the SLP<\/a> in Supreme Court against <strong>Samsung Electronics<\/strong>.  <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-samsung-electronics-karnataka-high-court-s-195-201-liability-cannot-be-avoided-on-ground-of-non-taxability-of-recipient\">CIT vs. Samsung Electronics<\/a><\/strong> 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has <strong>confined<\/strong> its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u\/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that <strong>it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India<\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/velankani-mauritius-vs-ddit-itat-bangalore-profits-from-supply-of-shrink-wrapped-software-is-not-royalty\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1819","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1819\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}