Which cases are most cited on computer software?

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471) — 914 citing judgments; CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494) — 461 citing judgments; DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. (39 Taxmann.com 88) — 269 citing judgments; III v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (93 Taxmann.com 33) — 245 citing judgments; CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (212 Taxmann 454) — 177 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss computer software?

BharatTax indexes 951 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss computer software (Section 10B Explanation 2 / Section 80HHF).

← All Phrases

“computer software”

Chapter III - Incomes Not IncludedSection 10BSection 10B Explanation 2 / Section 80HHF951 judgments

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

Leading authorities on computer software

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.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.

39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court

269

citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court

245

citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd.

212 Taxmann 454 · 2013 · High Court

177

citing judgments

Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.

346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

129

citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT

111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT

127

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on computer software, including software licenses, at the rate of 60%.

Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. v. DDIT

11 SOT 578 · 2007 · ITAT

citing judgments

Payments for data processing services using a mainframe computer and specialized software are not taxable as fees for the use of equipment if the Indian entity lacks independent rights or physical access to use the computer or software.

Judgments citing computer software

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

under:- 169. “Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non- resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright ... computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer

Granules India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

deduction of profits and gains as are derived by 100% export oriented undertakings from the export of articles or things or computer software for the period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce ... articles or things or computer software, as the case may be, shall be allowed from the total income of the assessee. On a plain reading of the provisions of section 10B of the Act, it is very clear that 8 Granules India Limited profit derived from the undertaking should

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Analog Devices India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar & Shri Nirmal MathewFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT (DR)

Section 250

revenue from software services constituted 99.30% of the total revenue during the year under consideration and the company was engaged in the business of computer software services. 26.1 However, the TPO rejected the said company as comparable on the ground that there was no clarity regarding the nature

Sultan Singh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshri Sultan Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Haryana Rice Trader, Ward-1, 780, Gali No. 2, Behind Sector- Karnal 6, Durga Colony, Haryana- 132001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buups6518L Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

stood upheld by the learned CITA. Shri Sultan Singh 5. Before us, the learned AO argued that in the Tally package which is a computer software package maintained by the assessee for maintenance of books of accounts, only the first name would get reflected and that no employee has been

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

respect of any right, property or information has always included transfer of all or any right for use or right to use a computer software (including granting of a license)? 4. We first take up the appeal filed by the Revenue. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are inter ... reading of the aforesaid agreement would show that what is granted to the distributor is only a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to utilize computer software for ATMs in India, it being expressly stipulated that no copyright in the computer programme is transferred to the ultimate end- user. This

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S. Ntt Data Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 5, Bangalore

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

IT(TP)A No.2533/Bang/2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, BENGALURU MS. PADMAVATHY S

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 250Section 9(1)(vi)

softwaremanufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer softwarethrough distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyrightin the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxablein India. 5.2.6 In view of the above discussion and following the ratio ... decision of the Apex Court as discussed above, it is held that revenue received by the appellant from sale of computer software is business profit and the same is not taxable in India as the appellant does not have a PE in India. Hence, the addition of Rs.7

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

wherein it held that 13 Shell International Petroleum Company Pvt. Ltd. AY 2022-23 consideration for use of computer software is not payment of royalty for use of copyright. Also, reliance placed by Id. DRP on the directions issued in the case of SITI

Booking.Com B.V., the Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

also enables passage of advice to the client. It would be childish to assume that the consideration being paid is for the provision of computer software. The consideration is nothing other than Royalty and this has been further elaborated later in this order. P a g e | 16 Booking.com

Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Limited, Shimoga vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the case may be seen. The assessee is engaged in the business of computer software development and services. The expenditure incurred in foreign currency on traveling, professional charges and onsite service charges are for development of software at clients site outside

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this tribunal in case of assessee's holding company namely Infosys Ltd. pertaining