← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)1,741 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Hq (Judl.) to CIT-14, Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

network is termed as 'process' and the payment made for the use/right of the same would be 'royalty' within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per DTAA, thereby holding such payment to be liable for deducting tax at source and in the failure ... payment made by the assessee fall under the category of 'royalty' as per Clause (iii) of Explanation 2 r.w. explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Dishnet

Oman Telecommunications Company Saog, Oman vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraoman Telecommunications Deputy Commissioner Company Saog Of Income Tax/Circle Vp Finance Office, Po Box 789, Vs. International Tax Postal Code 11, Ruwi Muscat, 2(2)(2), Delhi. Sultanate Of Oman Outside India Pan-Aabco4203F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm: The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 25Th December, 2024 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/147/2024-25/1071556765(1) Dated 25/12/2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Coming Out From The Orders Of The Authorities Below Are That The Assesse Is Foreign Company & Had Not Filed Return Of Income For The Impugned Year. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That Assessee Has Received Certain Payments From Two Indian Entities Namely M/S Bharti Airtel Limited & M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd & Has Not Shown Any Income In India. The Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Service Provided By The Assessee To The Indian Entities Were In The Nature Of The Fts And, Hence, Taxable In India. The Oman Telecommunications Company Saog Vs. Dcit Assessing Officer Relied Upon The Provisions Of Section 9(I)(Vii) Of The Act Held That The Service Rendered By The Assessee Are In The Nature Of Technical Services And, Hence, The Same Are Taxable In India. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs. 11,81,52,790/. Drp Also Affirmed The View Of The Ao Vide Order Dated 4Th November, 2024. Thereafter, Ld. Ao Framed The Final Assessment Order.

Section 148Section 56Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

must observe, while framing draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has characterized interconnectivity usage charges received by assessee as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. However, learned DRP has, apparently, disagreed with the Assessing Officer and recharacterized the interconnectivity usage charges as FTS both under ... Delhi High Court while deciding identical nature of dispute has held that the expression technical services' as used in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) takes colour from the expression 'managerial and consultancy services', which necessarily involve a human element or human interface. The Hon'ble Court proceeded further

M/S. Ceva Freight Llc, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1264/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

examining the facts of the case, the definition of "Fee for Technical Services"(FTS), the Assessing Officer relied on Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and observed that the definition of FTS in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act shows that consideration ... affiliate, which are clearly in the nature of managerial and/or consulting services, accordingly, categorically held that the assessee's receipts constitute FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, FTS was computed at Rs. 6,58,25,207/-. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxational 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailedenred Pte Ltd., C/O. Walker Chandiok & Co. Llp, 16Th Floor, Tower Lll, One International Center, S B Marg, Prabhadevi (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aacce8636P V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – International Taxation -2(2)(1), Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali Mhatre Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 treated the aforesaid income as Royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. In further proceedings, the learned DRP, following the directions rendered ... Indian Group Company as per the agreement entered into by the assessee. The AO treated the impugned amount as Royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act r.w.Article-12 of the DTAA between India and Singapore. 13. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts towards software licensing on a conservative basis the assessee has offered the said receipts to tax in India in accordance with section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The assessee's return for the year under consideration was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently ... whether it is a sale of goods i.e. sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer program (vi) Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot have retrospective application. 17. Based on the above principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court held all four categories

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts towards software licensing on a conservative basis the assessee has offered the said receipts to tax in India in accordance with section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The assessee's return for the year under consideration was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently ... whether it is a sale of goods i.e. sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer program (vi) Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot have retrospective application. 17. Based on the above principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court held all four categories

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts towards software licensing on a conservative basis the assessee has offered the said receipts to tax in India in accordance with section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The assessee's return for the year under consideration was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently ... whether it is a sale of goods i.e. sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer program (vi) Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot have retrospective application. 17. Based on the above principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court held all four categories

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts towards software licensing on a conservative basis the assessee has offered the said receipts to tax in India in accordance with section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The assessee's return for the year under consideration was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently ... whether it is a sale of goods i.e. sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer program (vi) Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot have retrospective application. 17. Based on the above principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court held all four categories

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, London

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 192

Data Processing (India) Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'HDPI') and required the assessee as to why the same should not considered as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee replied that these are reimbursement receipts from HSBC Electronic Data Processing (1) Pvt. Ltd. on account of seconded

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

erred in ignoring that salary received in India by the Appellant is not taxable in India under Section 5(2) read with Section 9(1)(ii) and Section 15(1)(a) of the Act as the services have been rendered to BMW China in China by the Appellant ... country.” 20. The ld.AR further submitted that the salary received by the assessee in India is exempt under Section 5(2) read with Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act as the same does not accrue or arise to him in India as the services have been rendered outside India

Salesforce.Com Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Siddharth Bhim Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 9

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D' BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRAM PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

amounting to Rs. 9,34,91,383/- by ignoring the fact that the case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolutions Panel-II is legally justified ... doing so the Ld. DRP ignored the fact that the case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1) (vii) (b) of the Act. 8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after inordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in concluding that the Appellant has a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act on the basis that the Appellant is earning income from India on a regular and continuous basis. 4. Ground ... well as Tribunal orders for earlier years. First of all the reason as to why there is no business connection in terms of Section 9(1)(1) of the Act is that-  RGA Services performs its activities in an independent manner RGA Services render services not only to the assessee

ACIT, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Civic Centre, Near Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

duplicate the work and hence the payment which it has received during the year under consideration is "Royalty" income and falls under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that receipts in the hands of the assessee are consideration for use of, or the right ... copyright, the trade mark or other like property or right and therefore, such consideration constitutes royalty under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3.8 Thereafter, referring to the definition of royalty under the domestic law of India, wherein, royalty has been defined in Explanation 2(1

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1961/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

duplicate the work and hence the payment which it has received during the year under consideration is "Royalty" income and falls under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that receipts in the hands of the assessee are consideration for use of, or the right ... copyright, the trade mark or other like property or right and therefore, such consideration constitutes royalty under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3.8 Thereafter, referring to the definition of royalty under the domestic law of India, wherein, royalty has been defined in Explanation 2(1

Trans World International Llc, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (International Taxation) - 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1960/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Pdr Solutions Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. ACIT Circle-International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 373/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

same has been defined under the provisions of the Act. We further find that after the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by Finance Act 2012, the possession or control or PDR Solutions FZC ITA no.1855/Mum./2022 ITA no.1856/Mum./2022 location of the right ... Court held that unless the DTAA is amended jointly by both parties, Finance Act, 2012 which inserted Explanations 4, 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) by itself would not affect the meaning of term 'royalty' as mentioned in the DTAA. Therefore, in absence of a grant