← 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

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1573/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

software without any right to modify the source code or replicate it. As already mentioned, there are various kinds of rights associated with a copyrighted article and the right to copy it is not the only right that attracts the provisions of Article 12 of the India Switzerland DTAA ... submissions filed by the ld.AR are as follows: :-12-: ITA. Nos: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 SA Nos: 20 & 21/Chny/2024 Payment/Reimbursement on account of use of copyrighted article cannot be construed as 'royalty' under the provisions of the Act • The Appellant is a non-resident in India as per section

Joint Commissioner of Income -Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article”, and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article”, and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article”, and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article”, and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article”, and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R &D Institute India- Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article”, and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India -Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which was a “copyrighted article", and therefore it was not liable to deduct TDS. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically recorded in para 4.11.2 that identical payments made

Gartner Ireland Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allo

ITA 2460/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

failed to appreciate that the consideration received by the consideration received by the Appellant is for non Appellant is for non-exclusive / non-transferable copyrighted article i.e., transferable copyrighted article i.e., online subscription online subscription-based products and is neither towards any use of based products and is neither towards ... Gartner India thus the said transaction was was merely in the nature of sale of copyright merely in the nature of sale of copyrighted article. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue pertaining rticle. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue pertaining rticle. The Ld. Counsel further submitted

The Dy.CIT (Int.-Taxa.)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Zydus Lifscience Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 36/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 9(1)(vi)Section 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Enterprisedb Software India Private Limited, Pune

ITA 989/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 40

submitted along with Form 35. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the contention of the Respondent that software is a 'copyrighted article' and therefore, the purchase of software license does not all within the definition of 'Royalty' as per the India-USA Tax Treaty

Openwave Mobility, Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

interpreting the fact that the sum received by the Appellant towards software licensing fees was in the nature of consideration for a copyrighted article and not copyright. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in law, in disregarding various judicial precedents (including the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court) wherein ... been settled that consideration for supply of copyrighted article does not tantamount to Royalty under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 4. That the Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law, in alleging software licensing fee as 'Royalty though he could not factually demonstrate that

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the application for stay on the recovery of outstanding demand filed by the applicant/assessee is dismissed

ITA 4615/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, American Chemical Vs. The Deputy Society, C/O Deloitte Commissioner Of Income Haskins & Sells Llp, Tax, (It), Circle -1(1)(1), 7Th Floor, Building 10, Room No. 17, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Mittal Court, 22 Nariman Complex, Dlf City Phase- Point, Mumbai Ii, Gurgaon – 122002 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Aalca4959L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 234ASection 253(1)(d)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 3 copyrighted article is an alogous to the rights acquired by the purchaser of a book. In the case of a book, the publisher of the hook ... enjoy the benefits of using SciFinder and do not acquire the right to exploit any copyright m these software. The a copyright and a copyrighted article in context of 8 American Chemical Society ITA. No.4615/Mum/2023 software has been brought out very clearly by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and on the interpretation of the same, it accepted the difference 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

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and on the interpretation of the same, it accepted the difference 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

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Benagluru

From or relate to the Services

ITA 192/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.191 To 194/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and on the interpretation of the same, it accepted the difference 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ovid Technologies Inc, Gurgoan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2626/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2020-21 बनाम Acit Ovid Technologies Inc., Circle 2(2)(2), Vs. N-143, Ground Floor, International Taxation, Luxotica Today, Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Sector-51, Gurgaon, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Haryana. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Center, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabco3041P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92

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:” A perusal of the above Article shows that it brings within the ambit of the definition of ‘Royalty’ the payment made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ovid Technologies Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2622/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2626/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2020-21 बनाम Acit Ovid Technologies Inc., Circle 2(2)(2), Vs. N-143, Ground Floor, International Taxation, Luxotica Today, Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Sector-51, Gurgaon, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Haryana. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Center, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabco3041P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92

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:” A perusal of the above Article shows that it brings within the ambit of the definition of ‘Royalty’ the payment made

Shell International B.V., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 110/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

income. As regards the argument of the assessee that the payment received is for off the shelf software product, which is a copyrighted article and the argument of the assessee that the software products are standardized and not designed/customized, the AO relied ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International