The ruling established that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULas/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - Present appeal has been filed under Section 260a of the Income Tax act, 1961 [for short 'act'] challenging the judgment and order passed by ITaT on 16th November, 2020 in ITa 945/Del/2012 for the assessment Year 2006-2007.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue submits that ITaT has erred in holding that licensing of software products of Microsoft in the Territory of India by the Respondent was not taxable in India as Royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the act read with article 12 of the Indo US DTaa.

3. He states that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the distribution model in the case of the respondent assessee involved making multiple copies of the software clearly indicating transfer of copyright.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the issue raised in the present appeal is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court in Engineering analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 159 has held has under:-

'..4. The appeals before us may be grouped into four categories:

i) The first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer.

ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign, non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users.

iii) The third category concerns cases wherein the distributor happens to be a foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non-resident seller, resells the same to resident Indian distributors or end-users.

iv) The fourth category includes cases wherein computer software is affixed onto hardware and is sold as an integrated unit/equipment by foreign, non-resident suppliers to resident Indian distributors or end-users.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

97. The aaR then reasoned that the fact that a licence had been granted would be sufficient to conclude that there was a transfer of copyright, and that there was no justification for the use of the doctrine of noscitur a sociis to confine the transfer by way of a licence to only include a licence which transferred rights in respect of copyright, by referring to explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax act. It then held:

'Considerable arguments are raised on the so-called distinction between a copyright and copyrighted articles. What is a copyrighted article? It is nothing but an article which incorporates the copyright of the owner, the assignee, the exclusive licensee or the licencee. So, when a copyrighted article is permitted or licensed to be used for a fee, the permission involves not only the physical or electronic manifestation of a programme, but also the use of or the right to use the copyright embedded therein. That apart, the Copyright act or the Income-tax act or the DTaC does not use the expression 'copyrighted article', which could have been used if the intention was as claimed by the applicant. In the circumstances, the distinction sought to be made appears to be illusory.'

98. This ruling of the aaR flies in the face of certain principles. When, under a non-exclusive licence, an end-user gets the right to use computer software in the form of a CD, the end-user only receives a right to use the software and nothing more. The end-user does not get any of the rights that the owner continues to retain under section 14(b) of the Copyright act read with sub-section (a)(i)-(vii) thereof. Thus, the conclusion that when computer software is licensed for use under an EULa, what is also licensed is the right to use the copyright embedded therein, is wholly incorrect. The licence for the use of a product under an EULa cannot be construed as the licence spoken of in section 30 of the Copyright act, as such EULa only imposes restricti