SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
EY Global Services Limited - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11957 of 2016 & CM 27602 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 12003 of 2016 & CM 26831 of 2021
Decided On : 09-12-2021




Payments for software licenses do not constitute taxable royalty in India under the Income Tax Act and the India-UK Tax Treaty due to lack of copyright transfer.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 2(24) and Section 9(1)(vi) - India-UK Tax Treaty - Rulings of Authority for Advance Rulings challenged regarding tax liability on payments for software licenses - Court found that payments did not amount to 'royalty' due to lack of transfer of copyright - Earlier rulings overruled due to inconsistency with Supreme Court findings. (Paras 8, 12, 18)

(B) Tax Liability - Assessment of payments for software and services; consideration for right to use not defined as royalty under existing law and DTAA - The ruling deviated from established legal precedent upheld in Engineering Analysis Centre (supra). (Paras 12, 14, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, EY Global Services Limited and EYGBS (India), challenged AAR rulings stating that payments for computer software licenses constituted taxable income as royalty in applicability of the Income Tax Act and the India-UK DTAA. The requests for advance rulings indicated several ancillary services provided through contractual agreements. (Paras 6, 8)

Findings of Court:
Court found that the service agreements did not confer rights exceeding a non-exclusive license on software, clarifying that such payments could not be classified as royalty, thus setting aside the AAR's contravening rulings. (Paras 18)

Issues: Whether payments for software considered as 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 13 of the India-UK Treaties; determination of nature of services provided under the agreements. (Paras 1, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity for a definitive transfer of copyright for payments to classify as royalty. The precedents from Engineering Analysis Centre clarify that payments not associated with transfer rights cannot be considered as income taxable under royalty provisions. (Paras 12, 18)

Result: Rulings by AAR set aside; payments not constituting taxable royalty.

Table of Content
1. challenge to aar rulings based on amalgamation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. services provided by eygsl (uk) and eygbs (india). (Para 4 , 5)
3. tax implications regarding payments and services. (Para 6)
4. decision of the aar on tax classification. (Para 7 , 8)
5. parties' arguments on the applicability of supreme court ruling. (Para 9 , 10)
6. court's analysis based on legal precedents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. rejection of aar's reliance on prior case law. (Para 15 , 16)
8. conclusion on the nature of payments not being royalty. (Para 17 , 18)
9. outcome of the petitions. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J.

1. These petition(s) challenge the Rulings/Orders both dated 10.08.2016 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'AAR') in the Application(s), being AAR No. 1043 of 2011; AAR No. 1408 of 2012; and AAR No. 1409 of 2012.

2. The Application, being AAR No. 1043 of 2011, was filed by EY Global Services Ltd. (formally known as EYGBS Ltd). The Application(s), being AAR No. 1408 of 2012 and 1409 of 2012, were filed by M/s EYME Technologies Private Limited and EYGBS (India) Private Limited, respectively. As recorded in the Impugned Ruling dated 10.08.2016, M/s EYME Technologies Private Limited has been amalgamated with EYGBS (India) Private Limited with effect from 01.04.2016 and therefore, at the request of EYGBS (India) Private Limited, a common order was passed in the two references. The same has been challenged by EYGBS (India) Private Limited before us by way of W.P. (C) 12003 of 2016.

3. In the Application(s), being AAR No. 1408 of 2012 and AAR No. 1409 of 2012, the learned AAR has followed its Ruling in AAR No. 1403 of 2011 and therefore, reference in the present judgment will be made to the facts from the writ petition, being W.P.(C) 11957 of 2016, which arises out of the said Impugned Ruling.

4. The learned AAR in its Impugned Ruling dated 10.08.2016 records that the EY Global Services Ltd. (EYGSL) UK [hereinafter referred to as the 'EYGSL (UK)'] is a limited liability company engaged in providing technology and other support services and software licences to member firms of the EY network in various countries all over the world. All member firms, including EYGSL (UK), use the brand Ernst & Young (EY). The Petitioner - EYGSL (UK) has entered into contracts with various third-party vendors for the procurement of various software. It has also entered into a contract with EY member firms to provide support services and/or deliverables.

5. The EYGBS (India) Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'EYGBS (India)'] is an Indian company engaged in providing back-office support and data processing services. It has entered into an agreement with the EYGSL (UK) whereby it receives 'Right to benefit from the Deliverables and/or Services' from EYGSL (UK). The Impugned Ruling notes the specific services mentioned in the Services Schedule annexed to the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as the 'MOU'), which are rendered by EYGSL (UK) under the Service Agreement and the MOU executed between itself and the EYGBS (India). The same is quoted herein below:

    "4. The specific services mentioned in the services schedule annexed to the MOU, which are rendered by the Applicant under the service agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Applicant and EYGBS India are as follows:

    1. Common standards and policies

    1.1 Assisting in the development of Common Standards and Policies, including accounting policies, practices, principles and procedures.

    1.2 When considered appropriate by EYG Services, providing practice manuals and other reference materials and otherwise assisting in the adoption and consistent application of Common Standards and Policies.

    2. IT Services

    2.1 Promoting the adoption, maintenance and development of high quality, common information technology and communication systems by Member Firms and providing advice and assistance in con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top