DASSAULT SYSTEMS SOLIDWORKS CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT (INTL TAX) -2(1) (2) , MUMBAI

Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 6th January, 2022 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19.

2. Taxability of receipts towards sale of software products 2.1. The Honourable DRP has erred in upholding the draft assessment order after rejecting the appellant's objections merely for the reason that the issue was decided against the appellant by the DRP in the earlier years, even as it noted that the binding decisions of the jurisdictional Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on identical issue in the appellant's own case for the earlier assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013 14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were concluded in favour of the appellant. 2.2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and DRP have erred in holding that the income from sale of shrink-wrapped software is taxable in India, being in the nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India and USA 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and DRP have erred in not appreciating that the payments received on sale of shrink-wrapped software is for „sale of copyrighted article' and not 'transfer of copyright right' as the end users in India obtained only a right to use the software products as against any copyright right. 2.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in holding that software is a process or a property similar to patent, invention, design, secret formula, process, etc as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.5 The learned AO has erred in law in stating that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by way of insertion of Explanation 4 to the said section through Finance Act 2012 is applicable also to the definition of "Royalty" under Article 12 of the DTAA. 2.6 The learned AO ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (Civil Appeal No(s). 8733-8734/2018) (vide order dated 02 March 2021) held that the amount paid by resident Indian end users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/ suppliers, is not payment for royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and held that such income shall not taxable in the hands of the non- resident. 2.7. The learned AO erred in not granting the TDS credit to the extent of INR 8,84,58,733 claimed by the appellant in the Income tax return as per form 26AS.

ITA No.: 431/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 8 2.8. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act. 2.9. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant.”

9. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2016-17 available at page 8 to 13 of the case law paper book, which is on the identical issue in the identical facts and circumstances of the case. No distinguishable facts have been brought on record by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities. Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in order dated 30.06.2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 held that income derived by the assessee from the sale of “shrink wrapped software being a copy righted article would not be construed as royalty by returning following findings:

9. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. On a perusal of the recent order of the Tribunal i.e ITAT “I Bench, Mumbai, in the assesssee’s own case for the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y 2015-16 in dated 10.01.2019, we find that it was observed by the Tribunal as under:

“5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Coordinate Bench. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year we find that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal observing as under: - “3. At the outset, Ld. AR placed on record series of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 order dated 15/12/2009, A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 01/04/2010, A.Y.2006-07 order dated 08/02/2012, A.Y.2007-08 order dated 31/03/2016, 4 (A.Y: 2015- 16) Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation A.Y.2009-10 order dated 31/03/2016 and A.Y.2011-12 order dated 28/02/2017 wherein exactly similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee and it was held that receipts towards sale of software products was not liable to tax as royalty. The precise

ITA No.: 431/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 4 of 8 observation of the Tribunal for the A.Y.2011- 12 order dated 28/02/2017 reads as under:-

ISSUE NO.1 TO 7:- 4. Issue no. 1 to 7 are interconnected, therefore, are being taken up together for adjudication. Under these issues, it is to be determined that the receipt from the sale of software products to clients in India through its distributor / reseller amounting to USD 6.05 millions is in the nature of royalty or not. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the case of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2002-03 in order dated 15th December 2009 and for the A.Y.2005-06 in ITA No.5097/Mum/2008 order dated 1st April 2010 and for A.Y.2006-07 in ITA No.3219/Mum/2010 order dated 08.02.2012 and for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.8721/Mum/2010 order dated 31.03.2016 and for A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.7790/Mum/2012 order dated 31.03.2016. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the direction of the DRP is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside and the receipt is not liable to be treated as royalty. It is also argued that when no patent right was sold however computer programs were sold which could not be taxed in view of the provision u/s.9(1) of the Act therefore in the said circumstances the amount in question is not liable to be treated as royalty. However, on the other hand, the learned representative of the department has refuted the said contentions and argued that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has decided the issue in favour of the revenue in the cases of CIT Vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd., 212 Taxman 0454 (Kar. HC), dated 03.08.2010, CIT V. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Others, (2011) 345 ITR 0494, Kar HC, dated 15.10.2011, CIT V. Wipro Ltd. (2011), 355 ITR 0284 (Kar) / 203 Taxman 621 (Kar.) HC, dated 15.10.2011 and CIT Vs. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants (P) Ltd., (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 264 (Kar), dated 09.06.2014. It is also specifically argued that the Jurisdictional Tribunal in case of the DIT(IT) Vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. (Mum Trib) dated 06.09.2013 has followed the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd., 212 Taxman 0454 (Kar. HC), dated 03.08.2010 and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Others, (2011) 345 ITR 0494, Kar HC, dated 15.10.2011. Therefore, in the said circumstances the order passed by the 5 ITA No. 7027/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation Assessing Officer is justifiable which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the parties and perused the record carefully, it is apparent on record that the said issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2002-03 in ITA No. 3095/Mum/2007 order dated 15th December 2009 and for the A.Y.2005-06 in ITA No.: 431/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 5 of 8 order dated 1st April 2010 and for A.Y.2006-07 in ITA No.3219/Mum/2010 order dated 08.02.2012 and for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.8721/Mum/2010 order dated 31.03.2016 and for A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.7790/Mum/2012 order dated 31.03.2016. On appraisal of the latest order for the A.Y.2009-10, we found that the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the order passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which was favour of the assessee. In the said order, the discussion in this regard is hereby reproduced below:-

“5. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. There is nothing much that we can add to such a w ell researched and erudite order either. The decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, in favour of the revenue on this point, have already been dealt with in this order. As to what should be done in a situation in which there are conflicting views of Hon’ble non jurisdictional High Courts and in which we do not have the benefit of guidance from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we can only add, with respectful concurrence, the views expressed below by the coordinate benches: …..It will be wholly inappropriate for us to choose views of one of the High Courts based on our perceptions about reasonableness of the respective viewpoint, as such an exercise will be de facto amount to sitting in judgment over the views of the High Courts something diametrically opposed to the very basic principles of hierarchical judicial system. We have to, with our highest respect of both the Hon’le High Courts, adopt an objective criterion for deciding as to which of the Hon’ble High Court should be followed by us.

ITA No.: 431/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 6 of 8 1952(2) AIR 393 and followed by apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs Dy. Commr. of CT (1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 21 and Novopan India Ltd. vs CCE & C 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC), has been summed up in the words of Lord Lohen, in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a tax-payer does not apply to a provision giving taxpayer relief in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability. This exception, in the present case, has no application. The rule of resolving ambiguity in favour of the assessee does not also apply where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have to treat the provisions unconstitutional, as held in the matter of State of M.P. vs Dadabhoy’s New Chirmiry Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 (SC) 614. [Tej International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)]