← All Phrases

“royalty income”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)629 judgments

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

Leading authorities on royalty income

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.

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).

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.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Judgments citing royalty income

Utstarcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 187/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

offered such receipts to tax. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain, why such receipts should not be treated as royalty income, as, it was for transfer of right to use the copyright in the software, the assessee submitted that it had sold the software along with ... office in India and the agreements with the Indian telecommunication companies have been signed in India by an employee of the branch office, the royalty income is connected to the branch office, which constitutes Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Thus, he held that the receipts would

Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 998/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

offered such receipts to tax. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain, why such receipts should not be treated as royalty income, as, it was for transfer of right to use the copyright in the software, the assessee submitted that it had sold the software along with ... office in India and the agreements with the Indian telecommunication companies have been signed in India by an employee of the branch office, the royalty income is connected to the branch office, which constitutes Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Thus, he held that the receipts would

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1858/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

offered such receipts to tax. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain, why such receipts should not be treated as royalty income, as, it was for transfer of right to use the copyright in the software, the assessee submitted that it had sold the software along with ... office in India and the agreements with the Indian telecommunication companies have been signed in India by an employee of the branch office, the royalty income is connected to the branch office, which constitutes Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Thus, he held that the receipts would