Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether royalty received from non-resident OEMs for CDMA patents used in manufacture of handsets and network equipment outside India was taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and article 12(7)(b) of the India-US DTAA; (ii) whether receipts under the BREW operator agreement and BREW carrier agreement were taxable as royalty in India; and (iii) whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be interfered with.
Issue (i): whether royalty received from non-resident OEMs for CDMA patents used in manufacture of handsets and network equipment outside India was taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and article 12(7)(b) of the India-US DTAA.
Analysis: Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is a deeming provision and, where revenue seeks to invoke it, the burden lies on the Revenue to show that the non-resident payer carried on business in India or used the licensed right for earning income from a source in India. The record did not show that the OEMs carried on CDMA-related business in India, that the patented technology was used in India for such business, or that the source of the royalty lay in India. The OEMs manufactured the products outside India and sold them outside India; the mere fact that products reached Indian carriers or were customised for Indian use did not convert the transaction into business in India or source in India. Following the earlier coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, the royalty could not be taxed merely because the products were sold in India.
Conclusion: The royalty from OEMs was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi)(c), and the treaty question became unnecessary.
Issue (ii): whether receipts under the BREW operator agreement and BREW carrier agreement were taxable as royalty in India.
Analysis: The BREW receipts were held to be consideration for a copyrighted article and not for transfer of copyright rights. The licence enabled use of software only as an integral part of the product, without transfer of any independent right in the copyright. Applying the jurisdictional High Court's distinction between copyrighted article and copyright right, the payment did not amount to royalty.
Conclusion: The BREW receipts were not taxable as royalty in India.
Issue (iii): whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be interfered with.
Analysis: The penalty initiation was only at a preliminary stage and no final penalty determination had been made.
Conclusion: The challenge to penalty initiation was premature.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the substantive royalty additions, while the penalty-related ground failed as premature; the Revenue's challenge to interest also failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Royalty paid to a non-resident for exploitation of patents used to manufacture products outside India is not taxable under section 9(1)(vi)(c) unless the Revenue proves that the payer carried on business in India or earned income from a source in India through use of the licensed right in India; a payment for use of a copyrighted article, without transfer of copyright rights, is not royalty.