Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 195(2) is CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (212 Taxmann 454), cited in 177 of the 32 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 195(2)

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.

CIT v. Wipro Ltd.
203 Taxmann 621 · 2011 · High Court
140
citing judgments
CIT v. HEG Ltd.
263 ITR 230 · 2003 · High Court
77
citing judgments

Payments made for mere information, not involving the imparting of secret, confidential, or specialized technical, industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge, experience, or skill, do not qualify as 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or relevant DTAA articles. Not every piece of commercial information constitutes royalty; expertise or skill in providing it is required.

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

Payments for services are liable for deduction of tax at source, and withholding tax liability can be calculated by apportioning the remittance if only a portion of the services are considered royalty.

EY Global Services Ltd. v. ACIT
441 ITR 54 · 2022 · High Court
72
citing judgments

Payments for software licenses that do not involve a transfer of copyright or proprietary interest, but merely authorize end-user access and use, do not constitute 'royalty' income. Additionally, IT support services are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalty.

ADIT(IT) v. Baan Global BV: 49 ITR(T) 73 (Mum)
317 ITR 169 · 2009 · Reported
70
citing judgments

Payment for subscription-based access to an offshore database containing financial or economic information is not considered 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi), as merely making such information available does not amount to 'imparting information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience'.

Marck Biosciences Ltd. v. ITO
164 ITD 205 · 2017 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

Professional fees for strategic counselling and advisory services, including business promotion and marketing, do not constitute royalty income if they do not involve imparting confidential information or industrial, commercial, or scientific experience as defined under royalty provisions, thus not attracting withholding tax.

J.K. (Bom.) Limited v. CBDT and Another
118 ITR 312 · 1979 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The case elucidates the meaning of 'management services', detailing its components and considering whether such services qualify as 'technical services' for income tax purposes, particularly in relation to fees for technical services.

Technology Resources (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT
407 ITR 327 · 2018 · High Court
18
citing judgments
CIT v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
22 ITR 285 · 1998 · Reported
16
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 195(2)

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

Showing 120 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws | BharatTax