Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Financial Software And ... on 3 September, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Financial Software and Systems (P) Ltd
G-4, I Cross Street, SIPCOT IT Park,
Rajiv Gandhi Salari,
Siruseri, Navallur,
Chennai - 603 103. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A"
Bench, dated 22.06.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.822/Mds/2016.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order of
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, dated 22.06.2016
passed in I.T.A.No.822/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
2.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial
questions of law in this appeal :
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceeding
u/s.201(1) holding the assessee in default was not applicable to
Foreign remittance made towards purchase of software
without effecting withholding tax under Section 195 is proper?
2.Whether the foreign remittance made to Companies by
the assessee without deducting, withholding taxes under
Section 195 of the I.T.Act, 1962 in respect of purchase of
software can be treated as royalty on which TDS is to be
made?
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
3.Whether the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i)
and the order passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) are
independent and different proceedings?”
3.We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for
the respondent/assessee.
4.It is not disputed before us that the substantial questions of law,
which have been raised in this appeal, have been answered in favour of the
assessee in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v.
Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported in (2021) SCC Online
SC 159.
5.In the said decision, there were four categories of cases as
mentioned below :
“4.The appeals before us may be grouped into four categories:
i) The first category deals with cases in which computer
software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or
manufacturer.
ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian
companies that act as distributors or resellers, by
purchasing computer software from foreign, nonresident
suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to
resident Indian end-users.
iii) The third category concerns cases wherein the
distributor happens to be a foreign, non-resident vendor,
who, after purchasing software from a foreign,
nonresident seller, resells the same to resident Indian
distributors or end-users.
iv) The fourth category includes cases wherein computer
software is affixed onto hardware and is sold as an
integrated unit/equipment by foreign, non-resident
suppliers to resident Indian distributors or end-users.”
6.After elaborately considering the entire issues, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows :
“172. Given the definition of royalties contained in
Article 12 of the DTAAs mentioned in paragraph 41 of this
judgment, it is clear that there is no obligation on the persons
mentioned in section 195 of the Income Tax Act to deduct tax
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
at source, as the distribution agreements/EULAs in the facts of
these cases do not create any interest or right in such
distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or
right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the
Income Tax Act (section 9 (1)(vi), along with explanations 2
and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more
beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of
these cases.
173. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that
the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to
non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as
consideration for the resale/use of the computer software
through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of
royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and
that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India,
as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of
the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under
section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question
will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in
paragraph 4 of this judgment.
174. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the
High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix
Systems (AAR) (supra) is set aside. The appeals from the
impugned judgments of the High Court of Delhi are
dismissed.”
7.Following the above decision, this Tax Case Appeal filed by the
Revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered
against the Revenue. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
03.09.2021
(12/14)
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
The Commissioner of Income tax,
Chennai.
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.418 of 2021
03.09.2021
(12/14)
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
