Article 12, India-Netherlands DTAA; Section 9, the Act – Since software license issued by Dutch company to Indian customer did not permit ‘adaptation’ as defined in Copyright Act, 1957, payment made by Indian customer was not towards ‘use’ of copyright; hence, it was not ‘royalty’ under DTAA.
FACTS
The Taxpayer was a company incorporated in Netherlands. It was also a tax resident of Netherlands. The Taxpayer entered into software license agreement with an Indian company (“I Co”). The principal terms and conditions of the said agreement were as follows.
– The Taxpayer had granted non-exclusive, non-transferable, license for perpetual use on one hardware system which may include up to four servers.
– I Co did not acquire any copyright in the product.
– The software was for exclusive use of I Co for the purpose of its own business. I Co was not permitted to exploit it commercially or to assign, transfer or sublicense it.
– While I Co was permitted to modify source code, it was not permitted to modify object code10.
– Only the Taxpayer had modification rights of software.
In light of the aforementioned terms and conditions, the Taxpayer treated income arising from the said transaction as its business income. Since it did not have any PE in India, it did not offer the income to tax in India.
According to the AO, the payment received by the Taxpayer on account of sale of software to I Co was ‘Royalty’ and, therefore, it was taxable in India in the hands of the Taxpayer u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
HELD
– The Taxpayer had enabled I Co to change source code so as to make the product compatible to the local laws and regulations. The said change in the source code could not be operational till the object code was modified by the Taxpayer. Hence, the limited right of modification qua the source code granted to I Co cannot be viewed adversely.
– The computer program was governed by The Copyright Act, 1957. I Co was not permitted to do any act referred to in section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, the Taxpayer had not granted any copyright to I Co.
– Analysis and comparison of various provisions of the Copyright Act with the relevant clauses of the said agreement showed that the said agreement did not permit I Co to carry out any alteration or conversion of any nature, so as to fall within the definition of ‘adaptation’ as defined in Copyright Act, 1957. The right given to the customer for reproduction was only for the limited purpose so as to make it usable for all the offices of I Co in India and no right was given to I Co for commercial exploitation of the same.
– It is also noted that the terms of the agreement did not allow or authorise I Co to do any of the acts covered by the definition of ‘copyright’. Hence, the payment made by I Co could not be construed as payment made towards ‘use’ of copyright as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and DTAA when read together with the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.
– DTAAs of certain countries (such as, Malaysia, Romania, Kazakhstan and Morocco) specifically include software payment within the definition of ‘Royalty’. However India-Netherlands DTAA does not include software payment while defining ‘Royalty’. Hence, payment received by the Taxpayer on account of sale of software, could not be characterised
as ‘Royalty’.
– I Co had made payment for use of the software and not the ‘process’ involved in it. Since the definition in article 12(4) of India-Netherlands DTAA did not include consideration for the use or right to use ‘computer programme’ or ‘software’, the same could not be imported into it. Perusal of clauses of the Master Agreement showed that the customer had paid consideration for ‘use of computer software’ and not for ‘copyright of the computer software’. India-Netherlands DTAA treats consideration for the use of copyright of a laboratory or artistic work, etc. as ‘Royalty’. Hence, there is no question of including consideration for use of a laboratory or artistic work, etc. within the ambit of ‘Royalty’ as defined in article 12(4) of the DTAA.
– Consideration for sale of software should be covered in Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly taxable as such. However, since no corresponding amendment is made to India-Netherlands DTAA, the Taxpayer can choose more beneficial provision, i.e., DTAA.
– Since the payment received by the Taxpayer is in the nature of business profits, it is assessable under Article 7 of India-Netherlands DTAA and not under article 12.
