“copyrighted article”

SABRE MARKETING NEDERLAND, BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

nSabre Marketing Nederland, BV\n79. As noted hereinabove, Article 12(3) defines 'royalty' to mean payments received\nfor the use or right to use copyrighted articles, patents, trademarks, designs,\nmodels, secret formulae or processes. The latter part of Para 3(a) also ropes in\nconsideration that may be received from

SABRE MARKETING NEDERLAND, BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

nSabre Marketing Nederland, BV\n79. As noted hereinabove, Article 12(3) defines 'royalty' to mean payments received\nfor the use or right to use copyrighted articles, patents, trademarks, designs,\nmodels, secret formulae or processes. The latter part of Para 3(a) also ropes in\nconsideration that may be received from

SABRE MARKETING NEDERLAND, BV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

entirety.\n79. As noted hereinabove, Article 12(3) defines 'royalty' to mean payments received\nfor the use or right to use copyrighted articles, patents, trademarks, designs,\nmodels, secret formulae or processes. The latter part of Para 3(a) also ropes in\nconsideration that may be received from the alienation

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

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, NEW DELHI

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

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

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

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.

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, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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