Treaty royalty test for software and cloud payments: copyright transfer is required, and related service charges need DTAA review.

For cross-border software and related payments, the treaty definition prevails where more beneficial, and royalty arises only if copyright rights under section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 are transferred. Payments for software licences, database access, cloud computing, web hosting and data connectivity were therefore not sustained as royalty on the existing record and were remitted for fresh consideration under Engineering Analysis and the relevant agreements. Consulting, legal, professional, training, certification and sub-contracting charges also required independent examination under the applicable DTAAs to determine whether they were fees for technical services or otherwise not taxable in India.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payments for software licence, database access, cloud computing, web hosting and data connectivity charges were royalty taxable in India under the Act and the applicable DTAAs. (ii) Whether payments towards consulting, legal, professional, training, certification and sub-contracting charges were taxable as fees for technical services or otherwise required fresh examination under the applicable DTAAs.

Issue (i): Whether payments for software licence, database access, cloud computing, web hosting and data connectivity charges were royalty taxable in India under the Act and the applicable DTAAs.

Analysis: The earlier view adopted by the revenue authorities rested mainly on Samsung Electronics, but that approach stood displaced by Engineering Analysis. The controlling test is whether the non-resident has parted with copyright rights under section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, because only then can a payment for software be characterised as royalty. Where the transaction is confined to a licence imposing restrictions on use, or to infrastructure-based services such as cloud hosting or data transmission, the payment is not automatically royalty. The applicability of the treaty definition of royalty and the need to examine the licence terms and agreements were material, and the retrospective amendments to section 9(1)(vi) could not by themselves govern where the DTAA was more beneficial.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in the light of Engineering Analysis and the relevant agreements, and the existing royalty characterisation was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether payments towards consulting, legal, professional, training, certification and sub-contracting charges were taxable as fees for technical services or otherwise required fresh examination under the applicable DTAAs.

Analysis: These payments were linked by the revenue authorities to software or cloud-related transactions, but the treaty position governing fees for technical services had not been independently analysed. The Tribunal found that the issue could not be finally concluded without examining the relevant DTAA provisions and the factual basis of the services received. Accordingly, a fresh look was necessary on whether the payments fell within the treaty definition of technical services or were otherwise not taxable in India.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for reconsideration under the applicable DTAA provisions.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed only for statistical purposes, with the disputed taxability issues sent back for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: For software and related cross-border payments, treaty provisions prevail where they are more beneficial, and absent transfer of copyright rights under section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the payment is not royalty merely because the Income-tax Act was retrospectively expanded.

---