← All Phrases

“copyrighted article”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)293 judgments

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

Leading authorities on copyrighted article

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.

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.

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.

Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh
271 ITR 401 · 2004 · Supreme Court
231
citing judgments

The sale of 'canned software' in physical form is the sale of a copyrighted article and constitutes 'goods,' distinct from the underlying copyright. This case provides foundational principles for distinguishing copyrighted works from copyrighted articles and for what qualifies as 'production or manufacturing of goods or articles' under tax laws.

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.

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO
361 ITR 575 · 2014 · High Court
156
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

CIT v. Wipro Ltd. (
70 Taxmann.com 129 · Reported
77
citing judgments

Payments are liable for deduction of tax at source when they are in the nature of royalty. The withholding tax liability can be worked out by applying a proportion to the total remittance.

Judgments citing copyrighted article

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 381/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7534/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

ITA 843/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

above, the learned AO is not justified in holding that the payment made for the purchase of software is towards the use of copyrighted article and not for use of copyright. f) That the learned AO also failed to appreciate that a retrospective amendment cannot be made applicable to disallow

M/S Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 542/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

above, the learned AO is not justified in holding that the payment made for the purchase of software is towards the use of copyrighted article and not for use of copyright. f) That the learned AO also failed to appreciate that a retrospective amendment cannot be made applicable to disallow

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Corporation (International) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 234/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 7A

above, the learned AO is not justified in holding that the payment made for the purchase of software is towards the use of copyrighted article and not for use of copyright. f) That the learned AO also failed to appreciate that a retrospective amendment cannot be made applicable to disallow

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touch Tmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

such there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the vendors and it is a case of mere transfer of copyrighted article. Thus, the payments made for the activities/services under the aforesaid three heads cannot be held to be in the nature of Royalty ... assessee does not acquire any right to exploit, sub-license or commercially deploy such software. What is made available is merely a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself. The legal position in this regard now stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering

DCIT(It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskin & Sells LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4654/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

such there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the vendors and it is a case of mere transfer of copyrighted article. Thus, the payments made for the activities/services under the aforesaid three heads cannot be held to be in the nature of Royalty ... assessee does not acquire any right to exploit, sub-license or commercially deploy such software. What is made available is merely a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself. The legal position in this regard now stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering

DCIT(It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskin & Sells LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4653/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

such there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the vendors and it is a case of mere transfer of copyrighted article. Thus, the payments made for the activities/services under the aforesaid three heads cannot be held to be in the nature of Royalty ... assessee does not acquire any right to exploit, sub-license or commercially deploy such software. What is made available is merely a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself. The legal position in this regard now stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering

DCIT(It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touch Tmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4638/MUM/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

such there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the vendors and it is a case of mere transfer of copyrighted article. Thus, the payments made for the activities/services under the aforesaid three heads cannot be held to be in the nature of Royalty ... assessee does not acquire any right to exploit, sub-license or commercially deploy such software. What is made available is merely a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself. The legal position in this regard now stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3455/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

such there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the vendors and it is a case of mere transfer of copyrighted article. Thus, the payments made for the activities/services under the aforesaid three heads cannot be held to be in the nature of Royalty ... assessee does not acquire any right to exploit, sub-license or commercially deploy such software. What is made available is merely a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself. The legal position in this regard now stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

Finance Act, 2012 wherein Expln. IV to sec. 9(1)(vi) has been inserted. It was submitted that the argument that OEM sell copyrighted article or thing and the argument that they do not give any right in the copyright, is of no consequence post this amendment as the transfer ... have an independent use and is an integral part of the hardware without which the hardware cannot function. The software supplied was a copyrighted article and not a copyright right. 174. Applying the propositions laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ericsson (supra), Nokia (supra

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

Finance Act, 2012 wherein Expln. IV to sec. 9(1)(vi) has been inserted. It was submitted that the argument that OEM sell copyrighted article or thing and the argument that they do not give any right in the copyright, is of no consequence post this amendment as the transfer ... have an independent use and is an integral part of the hardware without which the hardware cannot function. The software supplied was a copyrighted article and not a copyright right. 174. Applying the propositions laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ericsson (supra), Nokia (supra

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Respondent: Mr. Vishal Karla
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

assessment year 2014 assessment year 2014-15 has specifically noted that consideration that consideration American Chemical Society American Chemical Society received from ‘copyright copyrighted article’ is different from is different from ‘copyright’ and therefore, same does not quality as therefore, same does not quality as ‘royalty’. The relevant finding ... copyrighted case too, what is acquired by the customer is a copyrighted case too, what is acquired by the customer is a copyrighted article, copyrights of which continue to article, copyrights of which continue to lie with assessee for lie with assessee for all purposes. lt is a well settled

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), New Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road

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

ITA 2029/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

users to amend, modify or alter the product sold to them. The assessee sells compiled, indexed or curated articles obtained from other authors as copyrighted article / product, for easy access to customers. Further it is submitted that information accessed by customers on assessee’s online journals, was publicly available ... present case, the payment is for the use of copyrighted material rather than for the use of copyright. The distinction between the copyright and copyrighted article has been very well pointed out by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Nokia Networks

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)

passages from that decision:- 11 "89. There is a clear distinction between royalty paid on transfer of copyright rights and consideration for transfer of copyrighted articles. Right to use a copyrighted article or product with the owner retaining his copyright is not the same thing as transferring or assigning rights ... There is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the Assessee and it is a case of mere transfer of a copyrighted article. The payment is for a copyrighted article and represents the purchase price of an article and cannot be considered as royalty either under

M/S Enea Software Inc., India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Enea Software Inc. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Openwave Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax Inc.), 1St Floor, Vs 2(2)(2), Civic Centre, Mobility Quattro Iconic Plot No. 273, Minto Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase 2, New Delhi. Gurugram, Haryana-122015 Pan- Aabco7261M Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C

payment made in consideration for a 'process, entirely disregarding the fact the said fee was clearly received in consideration for a copyrighted article 3. That both the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on fact, in creating a new characterization of income, being that ... disregarding various judicial precedents (including the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court) wherein it has been settled that consideration for supply of copyrighted article does not tantamount to Royalty under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') 5. That both the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP have

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)

made by Indian group entities to the assessee was in consideration for use of software provided by third party vendor and was towards the 'copyrighted article', without any copyrights being granted for its commercial 6 ITA No.- 1760/Del/2025 SNC Lavalin Inc. exploitation, hence, the same shall not qualify as 'Royalty ... made by Indian group entities to the Appellant is in consideration for use of software provided by third party vendor and is towards the 'copyrighted article', without any copyrights being granted for its commercial exploitation, hence, the same shall not qualify as 'Royalty' as per Article

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

global content library and technological infrastructure. Such continuous use, it was urged, constitutes use of copyright and technology, not mere sale of copyrighted articles. Hence, the ratio of Engineering Analysis was inapplicable. 78. With respect to comparables, the ld.DR supported the rejection of the seventeen companies adopted in the assessee