Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal that amount received by the assessee under the license agreement for allowing the use of the software would not be royalty under the DTAA.
The Delhi High Court held as under:
1) What was transferred was neither the copyright in the software nor the use of the copyright in the software, but what was transferred was the right to use the copyrighted material or article which was distinguishable from the rights in a copyright;
2) It further held that the right that was transferred was not a right to use the copyright but was only limited to the right to use the copyrighted material and the same would not give rise to any royalty income and would be business income;
3) The Delhi High Court expressed its disagreement with the decision of the High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2011] 203 Taxman 477 (Kar.) that right to make a copy of the software and storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking backup would amount to copyright work – DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. [2013] 39 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi)
The Delhi High Court held as under:
1) What was transferred was neither the copyright in the software nor the use of the copyright in the software, but what was transferred was the right to use the copyrighted material or article which was distinguishable from the rights in a copyright;
2) It further held that the right that was transferred was not a right to use the copyright but was only limited to the right to use the copyrighted material and the same would not give rise to any royalty income and would be business income;
3) The Delhi High Court expressed its disagreement with the decision of the High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2011] 203 Taxman 477 (Kar.) that right to make a copy of the software and storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking backup would amount to copyright work – DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. [2013] 39 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi)
No comments:
Post a Comment