https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347756 Payments for distribution of software products under a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence were not royalty because the assessee received only a copyrighted article, not rights in the copyright itself. The supplier had no source code access, no power to modify the products, and no proprietary rights in the underlying intellectual property; the India-UK treaty definition of royalty therefore governed, and the domestic retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) could not enlarge treaty scope. As the UK recipient had no permanent establishment in India, the sums were not taxable as royalty in India, so no tax was deductible at source and the consequential exposure under sections 201, 201(1A) and 40(a)(ia) did not arise. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Sep 2017 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347756 Payments for distribution of software products under a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence were not royalty because the assessee received only a copyrighted article, not rights in the copyright itself. The supplier had no source code access, no power to modify the products, and no proprietary rights in the underlying intellectual property; the India-UK treaty definition of royalty therefore governed, and the domestic retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) could not enlarge treaty scope. As the UK recipient had no permanent establishment in India, the sums were not taxable as royalty in India, so no tax was deductible at source and the consequential exposure under sections 201, 201(1A) and 40(a)(ia) did not arise. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347756