Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1520 - AT - Income TaxPayments made accessing its database and downloading readily available information - whether is in the nature of Royalty under section 9(l)(vi)? - entitled to benefits under India Singapore DTAA - distinction between “copyright” and “copyright article” - Held that:- We agree with the agreement advanced by Ld. Counsel that in order to qualify payment made to Thomson as royalty payment it is necessary to establish that there is a transfer of all or any rights in respect of copyright of literary work. It is observed that assessee is not allowed to exploit the database commercially under the agreement. Treaty provisions between India and Singapore unambiguously require the use of copyright to be taxed in the source country. In the present case, the payment has been made by assessee for use of “copyrighted material” rather than for the use of copyright. The distinction between “copyright” and “copyright article” has been well dealt in the case of DIT vs. Infrasoft (2013 (11) TMI 1382 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), wherein it has been held that in a case where assessee gets right to access “copyrighted material”, there is no dispute regarding the same to fall out of definition of term “Royalty”, under India Singapore DTAA. In this case, as assessee has only received access of copyrighted material, there is no dispute about payment falling out of definition of royalty. During course of hearing before us Ld. DR could not demonstrate as to how there was use of copyright and therefore, attempt to bring payments made under explanation 2 clause (iv) to section 9 (1) (vi) of the Act cannot be accepted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|