← 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

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1124/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

cost in its fixed assets on which deprecation has been claimed. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that what the assessee has purchased is a copyrighted article and not the copyright. Hence, he held that the payment made is not in the nature of royalty so as to require deduction

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4589/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

cost in its fixed assets on which deprecation has been claimed. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that what the assessee has purchased is a copyrighted article and not the copyright. Hence, he held that the payment made is not in the nature of royalty so as to require deduction

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4588/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

cost in its fixed assets on which deprecation has been claimed. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that what the assessee has purchased is a copyrighted article and not the copyright. Hence, he held that the payment made is not in the nature of royalty so as to require deduction

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3449/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

cost in its fixed assets on which deprecation has been claimed. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that what the assessee has purchased is a copyrighted article and not the copyright. Hence, he held that the payment made is not in the nature of royalty so as to require deduction

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3448/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

cost in its fixed assets on which deprecation has been claimed. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that what the assessee has purchased is a copyrighted article and not the copyright. Hence, he held that the payment made is not in the nature of royalty so as to require deduction

DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. . Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1638/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no intangible as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i property

DCIT, Cir 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1637/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no intangible as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i property

Ogilvy and Mather P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no intangible as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i property

Ogily and Mather P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1325/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no intangible as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i property

Ogilvy and Mather P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1324/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered acquisition of computer software under licence could be considered as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no intangible as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i as a purchase of a copyrighted article wherein no i property

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2017-18
Section 9(1)(vi)

scientific work, definition of Royalty would not get attracted. 10.1.6 In the current case, there is no transfer of legal title in the copyrighted article as the same rests with the Applicant. All rights, title and interest in the licensed software, which is being claimed to be copyrighted article ... programme and the right to use the programme itself. We have outlined below our detailed submission on the distinction between copyright and the copyrighted article:" 12. A perusal of the above article shows that it brings within the ambit of the definition of Royalty' the payment made

Elsevier Ltd, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2351/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

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 ... ratio laid down in the decisions (supra), the payment received by the assessee has to be held to have been received for use of copyrighted article rather than for use of or right to use of copyright. 17. Having held so, the next issue which arises for consideration is, whether

Elsevier Inc, New York vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2350/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

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 ... ratio laid down in the decisions (supra), the payment received by the assessee has to be held to have been received for use of copyrighted article rather than for use of or right to use of copyright. 17. Having held so, the next issue which arises for consideration is, whether

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1877/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1877/Del/2022 (A.Y 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Anshuman Pattnaik
Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

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 ... ratio laid down in the decisions (supra), the payment received by the assessee has to be held to have been received for use of copyrighted article rather than for use of or right to use of copyright. 17. Having held so, the next issue which arises for consideration is, whether

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1876/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1877/Del/2022 (A.Y 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Anshuman Pattnaik
Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

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 ... ratio laid down in the decisions (supra), the payment received by the assessee has to be held to have been received for use of copyrighted article rather than for use of or right to use of copyright. 17. Having held so, the next issue which arises for consideration is, whether

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Avaya Internaional Sales Limited, Ireland

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

ITA 714/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

under S. 14 (a) (i) to (vii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and, therefore what is transferred is not a copyright but actually a copyrighted article • The customer cannot commercially exploit the software and therefore a copyright is not transferred. • The software provided under the contract is goods and therefore

Avaya International Sales Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 526/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

under S. 14 (a) (i) to (vii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and, therefore what is transferred is not a copyright but actually a copyrighted article • The customer cannot commercially exploit the software and therefore a copyright is not transferred. • The software provided under the contract is goods and therefore

Moogsoft Inc, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Int. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9823/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 154

course of assessment proceeding, the assessee pleaded that the amount received by the assessee was from sale of software products which are copyrighted articles. Referring to Article 12(3) of India –USA DTAA defining royalty, the assessee contended that the amount received was not for the use of or right ... real time substitute of the existing process carried on by the entity. Thus, the materials on record clearly demonstrate that the assessee has sold copyrighted articles and has not transferred use or right to use of any copyright. Though, creation of software might have involved certain formula or process

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

what is purchased by assessee is license and not the product in the CD. Therefore, once the assessee has purchased software which is not ‘copyrighted article’ but the same falls under the domain of copyright. Therefore, according to him payments made there on to purchase of software constitute royalty within

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) (International Taxation), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

No.97/Bang/2019, IT(IT)A No.949 &950/Bang/2017 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 34 of 46 between a copyright right and copyrighted article. The important observations of the Supreme Court are summarized as follows:- “71. The transfer of "all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect