CIT vs Softwareone Pte Ltd | Delhi High Court 2023

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 447/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

SOFTWAREONE PTE LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R %

14.08.2023

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “ITAT”]. 3. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the sale of the software would result in the respondent/assessee earning royalty. 4. The Tribunal has concluded that since it was a sale of copyrighted material and not copyright itself, there is no question of royalty accruing to the respondent/assessee.

ITA 447/2023

1/2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:33:47

To be noted, in this case, the appellant/revenue sought to add Rs.12,87,22,587/- to the income of the respondent/assessee. 6. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, say that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Cout in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, (2021) 125 Taxman.com 42(SC). 7. We may also note that the Tribunal has returned a finding of fact that the respondent/assessee is a distributor, and not the creditor, of the software. 8. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SOFTWAREONE PTE LTD.

Cases cited in this judgment