← 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

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)

1717/Del/2022 32 change the situation and render the service or activity taxable, in the following observations: “He, thus submitted that the question of “copyrighted article” or actual copyright does not arise in the context of software both in the DTAA and in the Income Tax Act since the right ... judgment in Gracemac Co. Vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257 pointing out that even software bought off the shelf, does not constitute a “copyrighted article” as sought to be made out by the Special Bench of the ITAT in the present case. However, the above argument misses the vital point

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)

invoices for all the parties were duly furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities. We hold that assessee had only sold the copyrighted article by granting non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable right and license to resellers without granting any right to modify the software. 13. In view

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

entirety. 79. As noted hereinabove, Article 12(3) defines ‗royalty' to mean payments received for the use or right to use copyrighted articles, patents, trademarks, designs, models, secret formulae or processes. The latter part of Para 3(a) also ropes in consideration that may be received from the alienation

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)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

Sfdc Ireland Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 3(1)(1) Intl Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1475/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

/shrink wrapped software, software upgrades and support and maintenance services incidental to supply of software, which is not taxable in India being sale of copyrighted article. 4.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP have further grossly erred

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

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

ITA 2723/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Ms. Darshana Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

Bain and Company, Usa vs. DCIT, Gurgoan

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3056/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

provided by the assessee under the subscription agreement cannot be construed as right to exploit a copyright, but merely such services provides use of 'copyrighted article'. We therefore hold that the subscription receipts do not constitute ‘royalty’ in terms of the DTAA and consequently are not taxable in India

Bain & Company, Inc., Usa vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1677/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

provided by the assessee under the subscription agreement cannot be construed as right to exploit a copyright, but merely such services provides use of 'copyrighted article'. We therefore hold that the subscription receipts do not constitute ‘royalty’ in terms of the DTAA and consequently are not taxable in India

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1750/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA; 4. Failed to appreciate that the payments received were only for the „use of copyrighted article‟ as compared to „use of copyright‟, „use of process‟, „use of property similar to patents, design, trademark and invitation‟, which does not constitute „royalty‟ under

Coursera Inc., California vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandracoursera Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2)(1) 381, East Evelyn Avenue International Taxation, Mountain View, Civic Centre, Minto Road California United States New Delhi – 110002 Of America - 94040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc4141K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, &For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

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 ΟΥ ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself: 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a ‘copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself: 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a ‘copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself: 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a ‘copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software', the same cannot be treated as 'royalty' under the relevant DTAA's, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the 'copyrighted article' and not rights over the 'copyright' itself. 16. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. - The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a 'copyrighted article' and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not 'royalty' under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself. 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. - The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a 'copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself: 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a ‘copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself: 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a ‘copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself: 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a ‘copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

software’, the same cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA’s, as the Appellant only acquires a right to use of the ‘copyrighted article’ and not rights over the ‘copyright’ itself. 15. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the above issue is covered ... decisions. - The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a 'copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

customers, as is evident from the terms of the sample agreement of CAS customers. In our considered view, transfer of any right in a copyrighted article is analogous to the rights acquired by the purchaser of a book. In the case of a book, the publisher of the book grants ... using SciFinder and STN and do not acquire the right to exploit any copyright in these software. The difference between a copyright and a copyrighted article in context of software has been brought out very clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tata Consultancy