Embedded software receipts, treaty FTS and reimbursements: key tax characterisation issues and no section 234B interest for non-residents.

Receipts from integrated supply of hardware with embedded software, related support and reimbursement amounts were examined for characterisation as royalty or fees for technical services under the Act and the India-United Kingdom DTAA. The text notes that embedded software in an integrated product may be treated as a transfer of a copyrighted article rather than copyright rights, that treaty-based FTS depends on satisfaction of the make available test, and that pure cost-to-cost reimbursements are not income if properly supported by expenditure records. It also states that, for a non-resident where tax was deductible at source, interest under section 234B is not leviable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from supply of hardware with embedded software and related support/recovery receipts were taxable as royalty or fees for technical services under the Act and the India-United Kingdom DTAA; (ii) Whether interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable on the non-resident assessee.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from supply of hardware with embedded software and related support/recovery receipts were taxable as royalty or fees for technical services under the Act and the India-United Kingdom DTAA.

Analysis: The receipts arose from integrated supply contracts for hardware and embedded software, together with support and reimbursement arrangements. The assessment could not be sustained merely on the labels used in the agreements; the real nature of the transaction had to be examined. The legal position applicable to software embedded in equipment, as explained in the governing precedent relied upon by the Tribunal, distinguished a transfer of copyright rights from a transfer of a copyrighted article and treated non-exclusive use of software in an integrated system as a sale of goods rather than royalty. On the FTS question, the Tribunal noted that the relevant treaty test required satisfaction of the make available condition, and there was no conclusive factual finding that technical knowledge, skill, or know-how had been transmitted in that sense. As to reimbursement-type receipts, pure cost-to-cost recoveries with no profit element were not income if backed by actual tally of expenditure, and the matter required factual verification.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The assessee succeeded only to the extent of obtaining statistical relief on these grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable on the non-resident assessee.

Analysis: The assessee was a non-resident company and the receipts in question were subject to tax deduction at source if taxable at all. In such a situation, advance tax liability does not arise in the same manner as for a resident assessee, and consequential interest under section 234B cannot be levied where the shortfall is attributable to withholding obligations on the payer.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was held not leviable and the assessee succeeded on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the transfer-pricing/characterisation issues sent back for reconsideration and the levy of interest under section 234B deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-exclusive licence to use software embedded in an integrated product, without transfer of copyright rights, does not by itself constitute royalty, and treaty-based FTS requires satisfaction of the make available test; pure reimbursements on a cost-to-cost basis are not taxable income, and no interest under section 234B can be levied on a non-resident where tax was deductible at source on the relevant payments.

---