TDS applicability for Payments made to foreign software suppliers for purchase of software

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ([2021] 432 ITR 471 SC) delivered a landmark judgment regarding the taxation of software license payments made to foreign companies. This decision clarified whether such payments are to be treated as royalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether they are subject to TDS under Section 195.

Here is a detailed explanation of the judgment and its implications:


Facts of the Case

  1. Indian companies purchased software licenses from foreign suppliers, such as:
    • Foreign software developers or vendors.
    • Distributors or resellers of software.
  2. The Indian Revenue Authorities treated these payments as royalty, invoking Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  3. The tax department demanded TDS deduction under Section 195 on such payments.
  4. The taxpayers argued that the payments were not for the use of copyright but for the use of a copyrighted product (software), and hence they did not qualify as royalty.

Key Issue before the Supreme Court

  • Whether payments made to foreign software suppliers for purchase of software or software licenses constitute “royalty” under the Income Tax Act and DTAA?

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the taxpayers and held that:

  1. No Royalty for Use of Copyrighted Product:
    • Payments made to purchase software licenses are not in the nature of royalty if the buyer gets only a non-exclusive and non-transferable license to use the software.
    • This does not grant the buyer any rights over the copyright of the software.
    Example: When a person purchases a software license (e.g., Microsoft Office), they receive the right to use the software but not the right to reproduce, distribute, or modify the software.
  2. Applicability of DTAA:
    • The definition of “royalty” in the India-USA DTAA or other applicable DTAAs must prevail if it is more beneficial to the taxpayer.
    • The DTAA stipulates that for a payment to be treated as royalty, there must be a grant of rights in the copyright (not just the right to use the copyrighted software).
  3. No TDS Deduction under Section 195:
    • Since the payments are not royalty, there is no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195.
    • Payments to foreign companies for software licenses are, therefore, not taxable in India if there is no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

Key Observations by the Court

  • Distinction between:
    1. Copyright: A legal right to reproduce, distribute, or modify software.
    2. Copyrighted Article: A product or license that allows the end-user to use the software without ownership of the copyright.
  • The Court emphasized the principles of OECD Commentary on Model Tax Convention and clarified that the use of software as a product is different from the use of the underlying copyright.
  • The Court also relied on earlier High Court decisions, such as the Dassault Systemes and Samsung Electronics cases, but ultimately settled the law in favor of taxpayers.

Implications of the Judgment

  1. No Royalty Treatment:
    • Payments for software licenses are not royalty unless there is a transfer of copyright rights (e.g., rights to reproduce or distribute).
  2. TDS Not Required:
    • Indian entities are not required to deduct TDS under Section 195 on payments for off-the-shelf software or software licenses from foreign vendors.
  3. Clarity for DTAA Transactions:
    • The beneficial provisions of India-USA DTAA or other treaties will prevail, providing relief to taxpayers.
  4. Scope of Section 9(1)(vi):
    • The retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act cannot override the DTAA provisions, as clarified in earlier cases and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Engineering Analysis case establishes that payments made for software licenses or for the purchase of software do not constitute royalty and are not subject to TDS under Section 195, provided:

  • The foreign supplier does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
  • The payment is merely for the use of software as a product (not for rights in the copyright).

This judgment has provided significant relief to taxpayers and resolved long-standing disputes regarding the characterization and taxation of software payments.

Title

 

 

An Assessing Officer (AO) can refer the valuation of immovable property to a Valuation Officer (DVO) under the Income Tax Act, 1961, primarily in the context of capital gains taxation or income assessment. The reference is made to ascertain the Fair Market Value (FMV) or evaluate whether the valuation claimed by the assessee aligns with the provisions of the Act.

Statutory Provisions Permitting Reference to DVO


  1. Section 55A – Determination of Fair Market Value (FMV)
    • The AO can refer to the DVO for valuation of a capital asset, including immovable property, in the following cases:
      • Clause (a): When the assessee’s FMV (based on their own valuation report or claim) appears to be less than its actual FMV.
      • Clause (b): In other cases where:
        • (i) The AO believes that the FMV of the asset exceeds the declared value by more than a prescribed margin.
        • (ii) Such a determination is necessary, considering the nature of the asset and other circumstances.
  2. Section 50C – Stamp Duty Value as Deemed Sale Consideration
    • If the stamp duty value (determined by the state authority) of an immovable property is greater than the actual sale consideration claimed by the assessee, the stamp duty value is deemed the sale consideration for computing capital gains.
    • Reference to DVO:
      • If the assessee disputes the stamp duty value, the AO must refer the case to the DVO to determine the FMV.
      • The DVO’s valuation report will then be used to compute the capital gains.
  3. Section 142A – Estimate of FMV for Income from Other Sources
    • This section empowers the AO to refer to the DVO for estimating the FMV of any property (not limited to capital assets) in cases where income under Section 6969A, or 69B (undisclosed income) is being assessed.

Conditions for Reference to DVO


  • Existence of a Dispute:
    • The AO must have reasonable grounds to believe that the declared value does not reflect the true FMV or the stamp duty valuation exceeds the sale consideration.
  • Preceding Evidence:
    • The AO can refer the matter if there are discrepancies in the valuation claimed by the assessee or a third-party valuation authority (e.g., sub-registrar for stamp duty purposes).
  • Timeliness:
    • The reference should be made during the assessment proceedings and before finalizing the assessment order.
  • Mandatory Reference under Section 50C:
    • When the assessee objects to the adoption of the stamp duty value, the AO is required to make a reference to the DVO.

Judicial Precedents


  1. CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl (2014) [Gujarat High Court]:
    • Reference to the DVO under Section 55A is valid only if the AO has concrete reasons to believe the valuation requires verification.
  2. Smt. Monica Chattopadhya v. ACIT (2021) [ITAT Mumbai]:
    • The AO is obligated to refer the valuation to the DVO when the assessee disputes the stamp duty value under Section 50C.
  3. Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala v. DCIT (2021) [ITAT Surat]:
    • Amendments to Section 55A are prospective, and references made under amended provisions for earlier years are invalid.

Steps in the Reference Process


  1. Initiation by AO:
    • The AO identifies the need for valuation based on discrepancies or disputes in the FMV or stamp duty value.
  2. Referral to DVO:
    • A formal reference is made under Sections 50C, 55A, or 142A, as applicable.
  3. Valuation by DVO:
    • The DVO inspects the property, collects relevant data, and prepares a valuation report.
  4. Consideration by AO:
    • The AO uses the DVO’s report to finalize the assessment. If the AO disagrees with the DVO’s findings, they must provide clear reasons.

Key Points for Taxpayers


  1. Challenging Stamp Duty Valuation:
    • Taxpayers can dispute the adoption of the stamp duty value as deemed consideration under Section 50C and request a DVO reference.
  2. Representation Before DVO:
    • Taxpayers have the right to present evidence (e.g., valuation reports, market data) during the DVO’s inspection.
  3. Accuracy of Valuation:
    • Maintaining proper records and obtaining independent valuations can help mitigate disputes.

In summary, an AO can refer immovable property to the DVO under specific circumstances, primarily to resolve disputes about FMV or stamp duty valuation. The process ensures that assessments are conducted fairly, balancing both taxpayer and revenue interests.