Allowing the appeal, that Explanation 4 was added to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from June 1, 1976 to provide that all consideration for use of software was to be assessable as “royalty”. However, the definition in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement had been left unchanged. Similarly, though Explanation 5 had been inserted in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act no amendment had been made to the definition of the term “royalty” under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and since the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement were beneficial to the assessee, those provisions would be applied to the assessee. Thus, the amended definition of “royalty” under the domestic law even if amended with retrospective effect could not be extended to the definition of “royalty” under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. As the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement over-ride the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and were more beneficial they would apply and the receipts on sale of copyrighted licence were not taxable in the hands of the assessee as “royalty”.(AY.2013-14)