Executive summary. On 2 March , the Indian Supreme Court 1 ruled in favor of non-Indian taxpayers with computer software sales to Indian customers. This Alert summarizes the Supreme Court ruling and implications for taxpayers. Detailed discussion. The taxation of income from the sale of computer software in cross-border transactions has been a contentious issue in India for many years, with the key question being whether such income should be characterized as royalties triggering an Indian withholding tax or as business income triggering no Indian tax in the absence of a permanent establishment.
While the Indian domestic tax laws provide a very broad definition of royalties covering payments for the transfer of all or any rights for the use of or right to use computer software , various tax treaties limit the definition of royalties to payments for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work. Indian tax authorities have generally taken the position that income arising from transactions involving the sale of software programs or licenses should be characterized as royalties, irrespective of the nature of rights acquired by the end-user or the reseller.
However, taxpayers have often taken the position that the characterization under the applicable tax treaty should be based on the nature and extent of rights granted to the end-user. Divergent views of the Indian judicial authorities over the course of two decades have resulted in the progression of the issue to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling. The Supreme Court ruling covered the following categories of software payments:. Sales of software by a nonresident to Indian distributors for resale to customers in India.
Sales of software by a nonresident to a foreign distributor for resale to customers in India. Software bundled with hardware and sold by foreign suppliers to Indian distributors or end-users. Similarly, where the end user does not obtain any rights in the copyright under the license agreement, making a copy of the software for internal use as permitted by the license does not involve the grant of a right in the copyright.
The Supreme Court concurred with the view that a payment made by end users and distributors is akin to a payment for the sale of goods and not for the grant of a license in copyright under the Indian Copyright Act ICA. The designation given to a transaction is not a decisive factor, and the true effect of the agreement needs to be considered, taking into account the overall terms of the agreement and the relevant circumstances.
Prior to the expansion of the royalty definition under the domestic tax law in 3 to specifically include software payments, an amount could only be treated as a royalty if there was a transfer of all or any rights in a copyright by way of license or other similar arrangement. If there was a payment for the grant of a license, such payment would constitute a royalty only if such license results in the transfer of the rights in the copyright under the ICA.
As the licenses granted to the distributors and the end-users did not involve the grant of any rights in the copyright, the payments made for such licenses cannot be considered as royalties under both the domestic tax law prior to , and the tax treaties.
The expansion of the scope of the royalty definition in the domestic tax laws, which was intended to have retrospective application, could not oblige withholding agents to apply withholding on a retrospective basis. The OECD Commentary supports the position that a payment to make a copy or adaptation of a computer program to enable the use of the software for which it was supplied does not constitute a royalty.
This also supports the position that the payment made by distributors and end users should not constitute a royalty. The Supreme Court reiterated their earlier ruling which confirms that a withholding agent is only required to withhold tax if the amount is chargeable to tax under both the domestic tax law and the tax treaty. The Supreme Court confirmed that the determination of the income of a nonresident chargeable to tax in India is subject to the provisions of the relevant tax treaty.
If an item of income is not chargeable to tax under the tax treaty, then such income could not be chargeable to tax under the domestic tax law. The taxation of cross-border payments for the use of computer software has been a contentious issue in India for many years. This Supreme Court decision was much awaited to settle the controversy and to provide certainty on the issue. The decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all Indian tax authorities and subordinate courts in India and will apply to all pending litigation and audits.
In addition, taxpayers in certain cases could seek refunds of any withholding taxes that may have been deducted on past sales income from Indian customers. This Supreme Court ruling highlights the significance of entitlement to tax treaty benefits given that these transactions may continue to trigger Indian withholding tax under the domestic tax law.
Tax treaty benefits are subject to broad conditions, including the selling entity being the beneficial owner, holding a Tax Residency Certificate, and also complying with applicable anti-avoidance provisions including those introduced pursuant to the OECD Multilateral Instrument MLI. In addition, applicable from 1 April , nonresidents will also need to evaluate the impact of the E-Commerce Supply or Services Equalisation Levy including the expanded scope proposed under Budget and its interplay with the ruling.
Ltd [TSSC]. The Supreme Court decision in the case of PILCOM is not applicable to the current case as it related to payments made to nonresident sportspersons, which are governed by other provisions of the domestic tax law and were not linked with the chargeability under the domestic tax law. EY is a global leader in assurance, consulting, strategy and transactions, and tax services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over.
We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.
For more information about our organization, please visit ey. This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice. In addition to cookies that are strictly necessary to operate this website, we use the following types of cookies to improve your experience and our services: Functional cookies to enhance your experience e.
You may withdraw your consent to cookies at any time once you have entered the website through a link in the privacy policy, which you can find at the bottom of each page on the website. Customize cookies. Skip to the content. EY Homepage. The Green Zone hosts most foreign diplomatic missions, including the U. Following the vote, supporters of Iran-aligned militias had pitched tents near the Green Zone in an ongoing sit-in, rejecting election results and threatening violence.
The United States, the U. Security Council and others have praised the Oct. But unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud have cast a shadow over the vote. The election was held months ahead of schedule in response to mass protests in late , which saw tens of thousands in Baghdad and predominantly Shiite southern provinces rally against endemic corruption, poor services and unemployment. Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.
All rights reserved.
0コメント