9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost allocation without markup and hence does not constitute 'income' under section 2(24) of the Act; Receipts towards access to use software held as 'royalty' under the India-Netherlands DTAA 3. Erred in construing the payments of Rs. 48,18,78,884 received by the Appellant from Key Application Service provider and Shell group entities for access to use copyrighted software as royalty taxable under Article 12 of India - Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('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 invention', which does not constitute 'royalty' under the India-Netherlands DTAA; Receipts towards IT Support services held as 'Fees for Technical Services' CFTS') under the Act as well as India-Netherlands DTAA 5. Erred in holding that payments of Rs. 1,37,76,27,749 received by the Appellant for IT Support Services constitutes 'FTS' under the provisions of the Act and under Article 12 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, i.e., WIPRO/IBM, it is quite ostensible that:- * Firstly, any kind of right granted to WIPRO/IBM cannot be passed on or transferred to any other person and only WIPRO/IBM is legally permissible to exercise this right. * Secondly, the right to access/use of software is again subject to various terms and conditions, which has been highlighted under Article 4 * The right which has been given to WIPRO/IBM is not unfettered but has a very limited use for the own business purpose and not otherwise. * Thus, only limited right to access/use the software has been provided to the UT service provider for its own business purpose and they do not get any right in the said software. The access to software is not for use of any copyright albeit for a copyrighted articles during the course of providing service. The agreement clearly envisages that WIPRO/IBM shall use the software only for providing services to Shell entities and cannot alter or modify the software. Since the assessee is a resident of Netherland therefore, such a payment has to be seen in terms of Article 12(4) of DTAA, which reads as under:- "The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken into account for understanding the concept. Section 14of the said Act defines the 'copyrights' to mean as under: "14. Meaning of copyright - For the purposes of this Act, "copyright" means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely: (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme, (i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means; (ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation; (iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public; (iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work; (v) to make any translation of the work; (vi) to make any adaptation of the work; (vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi); (b) in the case of a computer programme,- (ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the assessee to the IT Service providers. 14. Further by making use or having access to the computer programs embedded in the software, it cannot be held that either WIPRO/IBM are using the process that has gone into the software or that they have acquired any rights in relation to the process as such. The software continues to be owned by the assessee and what WIPRO/IBM is getting mere access to the software. The source code embedded in the software has not been imparted to them. Hence, there is no use or right to use of any process as held by the learned AO. Hence, the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the payment in question cannot be reckoned as "royalty" is factually and legally correct and the same is upheld. 15. Apart from that now there are various decisions of Hon'ble High Court including that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd., reported in [2013] 39 Taxmann.com 88, wherein host of other decisions have been referred and relied upon. In the A.Y. 2008-09, the learned CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2013]345 ITR 494 and some other decisions of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joyment of some or all the rights which the copyright owner has is necessary to invoke the royalty definition. Viewed from this angle, a nonexclusive and non-transferable licence enabling the use of a copyrighted product cannot be construed as an authority to enjoy any or all of the enumerated rights ingrained in Article 12 of DTAA. Where the purpose of the licence or the transaction is only to restrict use of the copyrighted product for internal business purpose, it would not be legally correct to state that the copyright itself or right to use copyright has been transferred to any extent. The parting of intellectual property rights inherent in and attached to the software product in favour of the licensee/customer is what is contemplated by the Treaty. Merely authorizing or enabling a customer to have the benefit of data or instructions contained therein without any further right to deal with them independently does not, amount to transfer of rights in relation to copyright or conferment of the right of using the copyright. The transfer of rights in or over copyright or the conferment of the right of use of copyright implies that the transferee/licensee should acquire rights ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that upon termination of the agreement for any reason, the licensee shall return the software including supporting information and licence authorization device to Infrasoft. Xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxx 94. The incorporeal right to the software i.e. copyright remains with the owner and the same was not transferred by the Assessee. The right to use a copyright in a programme is totally different from the right to use a programme embedded in a cassette or a CD which may be a software and the payment made for the same cannot be said to be received as consideration for the use of or right to use of any copyright to bring it within the definition of royalty as given in the DTAA. What the licensee has acquired is only a copy of the copyright article whereas the copyright remains with the owner and the Licensees have acquired a computer programme for being used in their business and no right is granted to them to utilize the copyright of a computer programme and thus the payment for the same is not in the nature of royalty. 95. We have not examined the effect of the subsequent amendment to section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act and also whether the amount received for use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... works, reported in 358 ITR 259 (Del) concluded that, when assessee supplies the software which is incorporated on CD, it has applied only a tangible property and payment made for acquiring such a property cannot be regarded as payment by way of royalty. The relevant observation of the High Court in Alcatel Lucent (supra) in this regard reads as under: "We have noticed, at the outset, that the ITAT had relied upon the ruling of this Court in Director of Income Tax V. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 wherein identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of software along with hardware - rather software embedded in the hardware amounted to royalty. After noticing several contentions of the revenue, this Court held in Ericsson A.B. (supra) as follows: "54. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions in the facts of the present case We have already held above that the assessee did not have any business connection in India. We have also held that the supply of equipment in question was in the nature of supply of goods. Therefore, this issue is to be examined keeping in view these findings. Moreover, another finding of fact is recorded by the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of music on a cassette/CD or a sale of a film on a video cassette/CD. In all such cases, the intellectual property has been incorporated on a media for purposes of transfer. TAXPUNDIT.ORG Sale is not just of the media which by itself has very little value. The software and the media and case laws in favour of the assessee including that of the Delhi High Court on several occasions, we are inclined to follow the decision and proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thus, in view of the finding given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) that the payment received by the assessee for sums amounting to Rs. 3,75,25,291/- does not amount to "royalty" within the meaning of Article 12(4) of Indo-Netherland DTAA and accordingly, the same is not taxable in India. Since, admittedly, the assessee has no PE in India; therefore, same cannot be taxed as business income under Article 7. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed." The aforesaid decision clearly clinches the issues in favour of the assessee. 16. So far as the reading of amended definition of 'royalty' as given in section 9(1)(vi) into treaty as contended and argued by ld. CIT DR, we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongesellschaft (supra), referred to by d. CIT DR, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also dealt with this point and made distinction that the issue and situation before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was materially different and also the term 'royalty' was not defined in the German DTAA. 17. Thus, we hold that for all the years the payments received by the assessee from WIPRO/IBM in pursuance to the MSA cannot be treated as "royalty" under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherland DTAA. 17. Thus, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 18. For the A.Y. 2007-08 also, the Revenue has raised exactly similar grounds, therefore, our finding given in the aforesaid appeal will apply mutatis mutandis and, hence, the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2007-08 is dismissed. 19. In 2008-09, the same issue of royalty on similar payment to the same parties, governed by same MSA has been decided against the assessee by the Ld. CIT (A) following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics (supra). Since we have already discussed this issue while dealing with the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Royalty' under the IndiaNetherlands DTAA." 8. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the AYrs i.e. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and also the grounds raised are identically worded hence, we will take- the facts from 2009-10. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee, first of all, took us through the findings of the DRP on the issue which is recorded in Para 53 as under: "5.3 Discussions and directions of DRP 5.3.1 We have considered the draft assessment order, submissions of assessee and material. We have seen that under the Master Services Agreement, the assessee SITI BV has furnished technical and advisory services to various clients based in India. The delineated services are significantly technical in nature and the resultant fees are liable to be treated as Fees for Technical Services. We are also in agreement with the AO that the Ruling of Hon'ble Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of ARE VA T&D India Limited (A TD/L) is applicable in the case of assessee. In this case, the Aar held as below: "We have noted that under- the IT Agreement, the French company is to provide support services through a central team in the area of Information Technol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o: Indian customers. SITI BV is a tax resident of the NetherIand and is eligible to claim benefits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and The Netherlands. He explained that SITI BV is in the business of providing information technology support services SITI BV typically, provides helpdesk services-and network infrastructure services to Shell group companies comprising. Information Technology (II) support for solving any IT related problems faced by users i e any problem faced by users for accessing any application software c-mails, Computer repairs and maintenance etc. desktop laptop and workstation support, Services related to Wide area network ('WAN') arid Local area network ('LAN') for connection to the global servers', and Facilitating teleconferencing and video conferencing services Further, in the event Shell requires IT services from external service providers like WIPRO and IBM SITI BV is engaged in providing the necessary network access and related services as well. For this purpose, reference can be made to the scope of services to be rendered by SITI BV to WIPRO under the Services Agreement (copy of which is enclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t embedded in the software. In other words, WIPRO, IBM are not permitted to make copies and sell the software. Under the Services Agreements, WIPRO and IBM-have been granted the mere under the right in the copyrighted software and not the right of, use of-copyright'. Whereas use of copyright' encompasses exploitation of the rights embedded in a copyright but a mere user right is a limited right and consideration paid for Such user right cannot be regarded as consideration for use of or right to use a copyright. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd (2012) 20 taxmann.com 807 (Del-HC), wherein India-UK DTAA was under consideration of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble High Court after considering the Article 13 of the DTAA of India-UK and also the facts of the assessee finally held the concept of 'make available' of technical services that such receipts would not amount to fee for technical services so as to the "concept of make available clause' contained in Article l3(4)() of the treaty has not been satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Make available technical knowledge, experience. skill, knowhow or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. 5. The definition of fees for technical services in paragraph 4 of this Article shall not include amounts paid: (a) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary, as well as inextricable and essentially linked, to the sale of property, other than property described in paragraph 3 (a) of this Article; (b) For services that are ancillary and subsidiary to the rental of ships, aircraft, containers or other equipment used in connection with the operation of ships, or aircraft in international traffic; (c) For teaching in or by educational institutions; (d) For services for the private use of the individual or individuals making the payment, or (e) TO an employee of the person making the payments --Or to any individual or partnership for professional services as defined in Article 15 (Independent personal services) of this Convention (6), (7), 8 and (9)** ** ** 9. A plain reading of Article 13(4)(c) of the DTAA indicates that 'fees for technical services' would mean payments of any kind to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s advices to relevant market systems. For the services rendered, the assessee along with the other reinsurance brokers acting as an intermediary in the reinsurance process for New India Assurance Co. will be entitled to 10% brokerage. From the role played by the assessee in the reinsurance process as discussed above, it is evident- to us that the assessee was rendering only intermediary services while acting as an intermediary/facilitator in getting the reinsurance cover for New India Insurance Co. There exists no material or basis on the basis of which, it Would be said that the assessee was rendering any kind of technical/consultancy service within the meaning of Article 13 of Indo-UK treaty. The consideration received by the assessee acting as an intermediary in the reinsurance process cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be qualified as a consideration received for rendering any financial analysis related consultancy services rating agency advisory services, risk based capital analysis etc. as alleged by the A.O." The Tribunal also noted the process by which the transactions takes place It has been pointed out that the originating insurer in India would contact J. B. Boda/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the asséssee stated that the reliance placed by DRP in Arevay T and D India Limited of Perfeti Van Melle Holdings B.V. In re [2011] 16 taxmann.com 207 (AAR - New Delhi) was reversed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and reported in 2014 52 taxmann.com 161 (Delhi), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered as under: - "1. This writ petition is directed against the ruling dated 09.12.2011 in AAR NO.86912010 given by the Authority for Advance Rulings. One of the pleas raised by the petitioner was that the said authority had not considered the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Portugal which is an OECD country. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any agreement between India and an OECD country could be looked into while construing the Indo-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Convention. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also raised the plea that the memorandum of understanding concerning fees for included services referred in Article 12(4) of the Indo USA DTAA concerning the expression? Available? was also not considered by the Authority for Advance Rulings; It-was submitted that the said Authority refused to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
