“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

Gsma Ltd, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

cannot be considered as royalty either under the Income-tax Act or under the DTAA. 92. The licencees are not allowed to exploit the computer software commercially, they have acquired under licence agreement, only the copyrighted software which by itself is an article and they have not acquired any copyright ... royalties" under the DTAA, makes a distinction between such royalties, no doubt in the context of technical services, and remittances for supply of computer software, which is then treated as business profits, taxable under the relevant DTAA depending upon whether there is a PE through which the assessee operates

Ani Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 143(3)Section 263

No.1124/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 (AO) called for details of additions made towards intangible assets. The assessee furnished a breakup showing purchases of computer software amounting to %2,62,26,888.00, along with supporting party-wise details and submissions. The AO, after considering the submissions, passed an assessment order ... making certain additions but without disturbing the depreciation claimed on computer software. Subsequently, the Id. PCIT on examination of assessment records observed that the software expenditure of %2,62,26,888.00 was not actually incurred in the year under consideration but represented a provision only, and that the actual costs

Snc Lavalin Inc., Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1760/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

these cases. 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

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Dehradun

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 168/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

rights in respect of any rights, property for information includes and has always included transfer of all or any right to use a computer software (including granting of license) irrespective of the medium through which the right is transferred. Explanation 5 For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 167/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 166/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 165/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed

ITA 164/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalι.Τ.Α. No. 168/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 163/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 164/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 165/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2019-20) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 166/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 167/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Weatherford Oil Tools M.E Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Limited. 6Th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makwana Road, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacw1524G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Sh. Amit Arora, Adv, Sh. Shivamyadav, Adv & Ms. Somya Singh, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Cit(A)-Noida, 2 ('Ld. Cit(A)' For Short), Delhi Dated 31/07/2024 For The Assessment Years2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. All The Above Appeals Are Having Identical Issues To Be Decided, Therefore, The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard Together & Decided In This Common Order. 2

Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

rights in respect of any rights, property or information includes and has always included transfer of all or any right to use a computer software (including granting of license) irrespective of the medium through which the right is transferred. Explanation 5 For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 163/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Addl CIT Sp RG 22, Mumbai vs. Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2198/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

decision of the Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprises also DCIT (111 ITD 112) where it is held that the computer software life expires more than 3 years of period than the expenditure of the capital in nature. 15. We heard the parties and perused the material

Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. Range 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1581/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

Tribunal was right in holding that printers are eligible for 60% depreciation, when the entry in the depreciation table specifically says, "computers including computer software?' 7. We need not labour much to answer the substantial question of law, which has arisen for consideration in the instant case ... unambiguous. 11. By applying the rule of interpretation, we find that the relevant entry under old appendix I Clause III(5) states "computers including computer software" and the Notes under the Appendix defines 'computer software in Clause 7 to mean any computer program recorded on disc, tape, perforated media

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

incompatible with the business model actually carried out in India.” The Panel reasoned that the Assessee's benchmarking on the basis of distributors of computer software and related products was fundamentally misplaced, since Netflix India was neither a trader of tangible goods nor engaged in the sale of software licences

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI "F" BENCH :: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Ms. PADMAVATHY S

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

apply mutatis mutandis for assessment year 2008-09. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., 11.4 The Ld.AR submitted that this company is engaged in the development of computer software and also owns its revenue from export of software services. Either submitted that this company is not at all cup functionally similar with

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

Aptiv Components India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Delphi Automotive Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2082/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S Aptive Components India Vs. Acit, Private Limited (Formerly Known Circle-1(1), As M/S Delphi Automotive New Delhi System Private Limited), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd0226F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Ms. Richa Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

provide evidence to substantiate that the AE has actually incurred such common cost and that if the assessee is requisitioning / receiving services related to computer software, then there would have been license issued by the software developers authorizing the assessee to use the software. The learned TPO observed that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT(A)[2023] 432 ITR 147, wherein it has been held that consideration for use of computer software is not payment for royalty for use of copyright. Further, the issue is covered in assessee’s favour in its own case ... under the DTAA between India and UK. The Id. AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards use of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Netherlands vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

Branch, which has been incorporated above, it is evident that the Head Office only has the non-exclusive non- transferrable rights to use the computer software brought for personal use and clause 16 of the said agreement specifically provides that the Head Office does not have any right to assign ... license or otherwise transfer the license of this agreement. Thus, the payment by the Branch for use of computer software is not the right in the copy right but only for doing the work from the said software which subsist in the copy right of the software. The branch

Digicert Inc., United States vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1177/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardigicert Inc, Vs. Acit, 2600, West Executive Pkwy, Income Tax Officer, Suite 500, Lehi, Utah, Foreign, Circle Int. Taxation,- United States, Utah 1(2)(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecd9837H Assessee By : Ms. Tanmayee, Adv Revenue By: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

before us. 6. The assessee during the year under consideration earned income from license of software where it provides the right to use the computer software license through End User License Agreements (EULAs) / reseller agreements to Indian customers which in its opinion, was neither taxable