Held that the receipts from sublicensing of software were in the course of the assessee’s business activity, and could be characterised as business income. Further, the sublicensing of software was not a one-off activity but an activity carried on with regularity, continuity and frequency. Held that if  it was not taxable as royalty income, it could be treated as business income under article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. However, in the absence of a permanent establishment, it could not be taxed in India. Thus, since the income in dispute could be classified under other articles of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, it could not be brought under the residuary provision contained under article 23 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The receipts from sublicensing of software could not be treated as other income under section 56(1) of the Act and article 23(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.(AY.2020-21)