Held that income from sale of software was exempt from the tax net primarily on the ground that no copyright was provided by the assessee to its customers. In order for income to fall under para (4)(a) of article of the DTAA, it is necessary that there should be some amount falling in para (3)(a) and the income under para (4)(a) should be for services ancillary to the enjoyment of the right, property, etc., “for which a payment described in para (3) is received”. Since there was no amount taxable as royalties under article 12(3)(a) in this case, the information technology support service charges, as a natural corollary, could not be brought within the purview of article 12(4)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Held that once it was held that the amount received by the assessee for providing the information technology support services did not fall under para (4)(a) and also missed the prescription of para (4)(b) of article 12, it ceased to be fees for technical services. Hence, the addition was directed to be deleted. (AY.2019-20)