TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the receipts from sale of software were taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the India-Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to tax credit while giving effect to the appellate order under section 240 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the receipts from sale of software were taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the India-Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Analysis: The dispute was covered by the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own earlier year, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling distinguishing payment for a copyrighted article from payment for use of copyright. The software transactions involved a non-exclusive, non-transferable and terminable licence, and the receipts were treated as consideration for sale of software rather than transfer of copyright rights. On that basis, the royalty characterization was not sustained.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to tax credit while giving effect to the appellate order under section 240 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: While granting appeal effect, the Assessing Officer was required to consider the statutory mandate governing grant of credit and give effect to the appellate relief in accordance with law. The tax credit issue was therefore directed to be examined at the stage of appeal effect.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The software receipts were held not to be taxable as royalty, and the Assessing Officer was directed to apply the correct tax-credit provisions while giving appeal effect, resulting in allowance of the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: Consideration received for sale of software as a copyrighted article, without transfer of copyright rights, is not taxable as royalty; statutory tax credit must be given effect in accordance with the appellate determination.
TaxTMI 
