Held that under the licence agreement no rights were provided to make copies of software products or to modify, merge or combine with other software ; no right to change the object code from source code and make any derivative products from that had been provided and the technical documentation for the software remained the property of the assessee, the assessee was responsible for any claims of patent infringement and thus all intellectual property rights in the licensed products belonged to the assessee and its licensors only. The Indian company was required to get the terms of the legally binding end user licence agreement agreed by its customer before allowing use of the licensed products. The Indian company merely purchased the licensed software which was embedded in the head unit and fitted into cars for end use by the buyer of the car. The end user licence agreement was signed with the end user for use of the licensed software. The end user had limited right to use the application. The receipts from supply of software were not royalty income. The expression “imparting of information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience” alludes to the concept of “know-how” which is defined to mean “undivulged technical knowledge, information, experience or technique that is necessary for the industrial reproduction of a product or process”. The licence agreement specifically provided for supply of software licence only, and the assessee had only supplied a standard, off-the-shelf software to the Indian company and had not given any “know-how” to the Indian company from which the Indian company could reproduce it for its perpetual use as the Indian company had to purchase licences equal to number of cars manufactured by it. The payments received by the assessee was not for the use of the copyright or imparting information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience and thus would not fall within the scope of article 12(3) of the DTAA to be taxed as royalty income. The receipts were business income in the hands of the assessee which was not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment of the assessee in India. Held  that interest under section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is levied only in cases where the assessee does not furnish its return of income or furnishes it after the due date prescribed under section 139 of the Act. The facts on record revealed that the assessee filed its return of income within the prescribed (extended) due date applicable to the assessment year. The Assessing Officer was to verify the date of filing of the return vis-a-vis the due date of filing of return for the assessment year 2020-21 in the light of the CBDT Notification No. 93/2020/F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL dated December 31, 2020   by which the due date for furnishing of returns for the assessment year 2020-21 was extended to February 15, 2021 and decide it afresh in accordance with law. Tribunal also held that the proviso inserted in section 209(1)(d) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from April 1, 2012 would apply only where the person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited such income without deduction of tax. Since the income had been received by the assessee after deduction of tax at source the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act was not called for.(AY.2020-21)