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: Whether the amount paid for imported software embedded in telecom equipment constituted royalty chargeable to tax in India, so as to require deduction of tax at source and justify treatment of the assessee as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
Analysis: The software was supplied as part of a single integrated transaction for a customer-specific switching system, and the hardware and software were inextricably linked so that neither could function independently. The assessee did not acquire any right to exploit, duplicate, or commercially use the software copyright; what was acquired was only a copyrighted article to be integrated into the equipment. On that basis, the payment was not consideration for the use of or right to use copyright, patent, process, or industrial equipment, and did not fall within the scope of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or the corresponding treaty concept. Since the amount was not chargeable to tax as royalty in the hands of the non-resident recipient, the obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 did not arise.
Conclusion: The payment was not royalty, section 195 was not attracted, and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default or saddled with interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).