Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that since the copyright in the application was never transferred nor vested in a subscriber, the fees were not assessable under section 9 of the Act. Court also held that  article 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Singapore and India would have been applicable provided the Department had been able to establish that the assessee had provided technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes enabling the subscriber acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein. The explanation of the assessee, which had not been refuted even before the High Court was that the customer was merely accorded access to the application and it was the subscriber which thereafter inputs the requisite data and took advantage of the analytical attributes of the software. This would clearly not fall within the ambit of article 12(4)(b) of the Agreement. (AY.2011-12 to 2017-18)