SAP Software and Microsoft License fee reimbursements not taxable as royalty under tax law

The ITAT Delhi held that reimbursement of SAP Software and Microsoft License fees is not taxable as royalty, following the SC decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence case. Regarding ICT Service Charges taxation under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to examine factual aspects of agreements and nature of services in context of the "make available" clause amendment dated 30.08.1999. The matter was restored to AO for re-examination of the specific agreements and services under the amended DTAA provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdictional issue regarding Document Identification Number (DIN) compliance.
2. Taxability of software license fees as royalty under the Income Tax Act and India-Netherlands DTAA.
3. Taxability of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) service charges as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-Netherlands DTAA.
4. Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A of the Act.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Issue Regarding DIN Compliance:

The appellant contended that the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were invalid due to the absence of a valid system-generated Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. However, these grounds were not pressed during the appeal, indicating that they were not pursued further in this proceeding.

2. Taxability of Software License Fees as Royalty:

The appellant challenged the assessment of software license fees as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The appellant argued that the software license fees should not be classified as royalty, citing previous favorable decisions in their own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found that the issue of taxability of software license fees had been previously decided in favor of the appellant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. As such, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's position and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO).

3. Taxability of ICT Service Charges as FTS:

The appellant contested the classification of ICT service charges as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The appellant argued that the services did not meet the "make available" criteria required for classification as FTS. The Tribunal noted that the DRP had directed the AO to verify whether the decision in the appellant's case for AY 2017-18 had been accepted by the revenue and whether the facts were similar. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not examine the factual aspects of the agreements and nature of services in the context of the "make available" clause introduced by the amendment dated 30.08.1999 in the India-Netherlands DTAA. Consequently, the Tribunal restored this issue to the files of the AO for re-examination in light of the observations made.

4. Incorrect Levy of Interest Under Section 234A:

The appellant's challenge regarding the incorrect levy of interest under section 234A was noted as consequential, meaning it would depend on the outcome of the primary issues. Since the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, this issue would need to be recalculated based on the revised assessment.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 270A:

The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was also noted as consequential. Given the Tribunal's decision to partly allow the appeal, the initiation of penalty proceedings would be reconsidered following the reassessment by the AO.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, sustaining the appellant's grounds regarding the non-taxability of software license fees as royalty and remanding the issue of ICT service charges classification as FTS back to the AO for further examination. The jurisdictional issues and the initiation of penalty proceedings were not pressed and were deemed consequential. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2024.

---