9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Limited [ 2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] 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, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195. Chargeability of interest u/s 234B - HELD THAT:- Ground is allowed following decision of the M/s Mitsubishi Corporation [ 2021 (9) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT] - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right on the facts and in law in holding that the income earned by the Appellant was royalty for the purposes of Article 12 under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United States of America and taxable under Article 12(7)(a) of the said Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement? (iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as it is based on findings of facts which are factually incorrect and which no person properly instructed on facts and in law could have made? (v) Whether the Tribunal was right on facts and in law in holding that interest under Section 234B was chargeable? In the opinion of this Court, the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EAC ], is a resident Indian end-user of shrink wrapped computer software, directly imported from the United States of America [ USA ]. The assessment years that we are concerned with are 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end-user and does not part with any interest relatable to any rights mentioned in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act. xxxx xxxx xxxx 101. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA. Further, the expression copyright has to be understood in the context of the statute which deals with it, it being accepted that municipal laws which apply in the Contracting States must be applied unless there is any repugnancy to the terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
