← 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

Asstt. CIT(It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1094/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1092/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1091/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1089/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1067/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. The definition of Royalties ... been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as ' royalty income' has been upheld by the id. CIT(A) and IT AT. " Basically, the Assessing Officer held these payments as royalty on the basis of Honourable ITAT

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5677/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

been transferred, rather the assessee has allowed to use standard services to the Hotel owners, which does not give rise to any royalty income, but in estate would be in the nature of business income. 22.The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) also held that ... right to use the copyright but it is limited to right to use the copyrighted material and the same does not give rise to Royalty Income and would be business income. It was also held that consideration received by assessee on grant of licence for use of software

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -55, Mumbai erred in rejecting additional ground raised with respect to the claim for non- taxability of royalty income received from M/s SCIB Chemicals SAE, Egypt. This additional ground was not raised before the assessing officer but the claim had been raised ... lakhs. Before the learned CIT – A the assessee also raised an additional ground with respect to the claim for non taxability of royalty income received from one entity in Egypt which was rejected as same was not raised before the assessing officer, hence, it did not arise from the Assessment

M/S. Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 458/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

which the AE shall pay to assessee a licence fee equal to 30% of gross revenue. This receipt by assessee has been shown as royalty income by assessee. Apart from this, the assessee sells this software directly to third party customers in Asia-pacific region. It is noted that assessee

M/S Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

which the AE shall pay to assessee a licence fee equal to 30% of gross revenue. This receipt by assessee has been shown as royalty income by assessee. Apart from this, the assessee sells this software directly to third party customers in Asia-pacific region. It is noted that assessee

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: 1) Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Guarantee Fees
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

company and exercise controlling interest in various Tata companies. Out of these investments, the assessee receives income by way of dividends, interest on investments, royalty income from brand, capital gains etc., Out of this only dividend income is exempt. All other receipts thereon are taxable receipts. Even otherwise, there

ACIT, Cir.-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6402/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: 1) Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Guarantee Fees
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

company and exercise controlling interest in various Tata companies. Out of these investments, the assessee receives income by way of dividends, interest on investments, royalty income from brand, capital gains etc., Out of this only dividend income is exempt. All other receipts thereon are taxable receipts. Even otherwise, there

ACIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Media Private Limited observed that in the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in earlier years, the transponder service fee has been held as ‘royalty’ income. 6. In view of above, the learned Assessing Officer held the payment for transponder service fee made to various parties as listed above ... held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by Applicant is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act as well as treaty. 5 Viamcom18 Media Private Limited

Gemolagical Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. The ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 975/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

determine the total income of the assessee. The total receipts of the assessee company was determined at Rs.789,00,91,734/- which includes royalty income of Rs.348,35,96,482/-. Hence, the remaining receipts of Rs.440,64,95,252/- represents business receipts of the assessee. The ld. AO applied

Expeditors International of Washinton, Usa, Washington vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2) Int.Tax., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 180/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee filed the details on the basis of that details, the Assessing Officer observed that out of the total receipts the assessee offered only royalty income in its return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer show caused the assessee vide order entry dated 29.01.2016 to explain whether there

Expeditors International of Washington Inc., Usa vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1904/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee filed the details on the basis of that details, the Assessing Officer observed that out of the total receipts the assessee offered only royalty income in its return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer show caused the assessee vide order entry dated 29.01.2016 to explain whether there

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft, Germany vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7619/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

learned CIT(A)/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 42 on fact and in law has; General 1. Erred in taxing the royalty income erroneously offered to tax amounting to Rs. 2,36,54,858 by the Appellant which had been waived by the Appellant; 2.Erred in not appreciating the factual ... legal submissions/ documents submitted by the Appellant substantiating that the royalty income has been offered to tax erroneously. Taxability of royalty income on accrual basis 3.Erred in not appreciating that royalty income is taxable on a cash basis as per the provisions of India-Germany tax treaty; 4. Erred

Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5121/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Court of Delhi are dismissed.” ITA No. 5121/Del/2019 Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy 40. Hence, we hold that the software sales cannot give raise to Royalty income taxable in India in the case of the assessee before us. 41. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order