Royalty characterization of technology licence payments and linked refund interest claim remanded for fresh consideration.

Consideration paid to non-resident licensors for technology, know-how and technical information was examined on the distinction between royalty, transfer of copyright and supply of technical material under section 9(1)(vi) and article 12 of the DTAA, but the Tribunal did not decide the merits and remitted the issue to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration. The connected claim for interest on refund under section 244A, raised by a deductor, was also restored for reconsideration because it was linked to the main controversy. The connected appeals and cross-objections were disposed of for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether consideration paid to non-resident licensors for supply of technology, know-how, technical information and related assistance was royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and article 12 of the DTAA, and (ii) whether interest under section 244A was payable on the refund claimed by the assessee as a deductor.

Issue (i): Whether consideration paid to non-resident licensors for supply of technology, know-how, technical information and related assistance was royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and article 12 of the DTAA.

Analysis: The agreements required the foreign parties to supply know-how and technical information for use under the licence arrangement. The appellate authority had treated the payments as royalty, but the Tribunal noted that the decisive question was whether there was any transfer of copyright or merely supply of a copyrighted article or technical material. The Tribunal also noticed that the earlier orders had not examined the bearing of the cited authorities on the distinction between royalty, transfer of copyright, and fees for included services under the DTAA and the domestic provision.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and was remitted to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 244A was payable on the refund claimed by the assessee as a deductor.

Analysis: The claim for interest on refund was denied below on the footing that the assessee was a deductor and not an assessee for section 244A. The Tribunal found that this issue was linked to the main controversy and should also be reconsidered after the primary issue was re-examined by the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the first appellate authority for reconsideration along with the main issue.

Final Conclusion: The matter required fresh adjudication by the first appellate authority, and the disposition of all connected appeals and cross-objections was only for statistical purposes.

---