Companies & Sectors
IT industry suffers blow from tribunal order in Microsoft tax matter

Delhi tribunal rules that sale of software can be characterised as royalty from license income, and not a ‘sale of product’ and therefore is taxable

The Indian software and information technology industry is facing uncertainty in several tax issues, the most fundamental of them being the characterisation of its income from sale of software licenses.

The controversy is over whether the sale of software-specially shrink-wrapped software-constitutes license income (that is, royalty) or whether it is sale of a product. While globally, sale of software has been regarded as sale of a product, a controversy erupted in India over the characterisation. Just when it seemed that the controversy in India was being settled through the judicial process, in line with the global practise, a Delhi tribunal has again upset the applecart with a ruling that the sale of software is not a sale of a product but license /royalty income and, therefore, it is subject to tax under the Income Tax Act (ITA). This ruling was delivered in a case involving software giant Microsoft.

Web of agreements

The dispute arose after a series of business developments with regard to the company's direct distributor agreement with Indian distributors. Microsoft Corporation, USA (MS Corp) had granted Gracemac Corporation, USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary, the exclusive rights to manufacture and distribute Microsoft products. Gracemac passed on a non-exclusive license to Microsoft Operations Pte Ltd Singapore (MO) to manufacture and distribute MS products, for which MO paid Gracemac royalty on each product sold.

MO entered into a distribution agreement with Microsoft Regional Service Corporation, Singapore (MRSC) for distribution of MS products in Asia, including India. The products were sold through distributors /resellers in India, appointed by MRSC. Importantly, all intellectual property in MS products vested with MS Corp and the end-users signed an end-user license agreement with MS Corp that laid down the terms of use of the product.

MSRC claimed that income from the sale of software in India was not liable to tax, on the grounds that the sale of 'off-the-shelf'/shrink-warped software constitutes sale of products. Besides, MSRC did not have a permanent establishment in India. It also argued that the other US-based entities earned royalties from the Singapore entity, which was out of the Indian tax jurisdiction. It tried to distinguish between sale of a copyrighted product (which is the software) and the grant of copyright in the product.

The tax officer, predictably, did not agree with Microsoft Corporation and held that the payments were for the grant of license, that they should be regarded as royalties and were, therefore, liable to tax in India. The tax authorities also pointed out that the end-user license agreement mentioned the fact that the software is not sold but only licensed. Further, sensing a window of opportunity for tax collection, the tax officer disregarded the myriad agreements and ruled that all entities were liable to tax in India. Consequently, the tax authority determined the royalty income at Rs2,240 crore, nearly three times that which was originally assessed. The tribunal agreed with the assessment of the tax officer.

Tribunal's explanation

In its order, the Delhi tribunal said that according to the end-user license agreement and the restrictions put on the end-users, the transactions were essentially a license for MS products and not an outright sale as claimed by the entities. The tribunal rejected the difference between 'copyright' and a 'copyrighted article', and rejected that reference to the Tata Consultancy Services versus State of Andhra Pradesh case, saying that it was about a sales tax matter. The Tribunal also declined to rely on the OECD Commentary and US Regulations, stating that the definition of royalty and consequent taxation was appropriately clear under the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal said in its order that the royalty payments received by Gracemac was liable to tax in India under section 9 of the Act, according to which royalty income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue in India irrespective of whether the non-resident has a residence or a place of business, or business connection in the country.

Besides the characterisation issue, the tribunal also made some observations with respect to the principles of 'treaty override'. It said that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of domestic law and a tax treaty, domestic law would override the treaty.

While the ruling comes as a shot in the arm for tax authorities who appeared to be fighting a losing battle, the IT industry is naturally unhappy with the ruling. It believes that the tribunal has gone overboard, disregarding a Supreme Court ruling in a similar matter, and that the suggestion that domestic law supersedes a tax treaty is inconsistent with the Income Tax Act.

The industry is considering challenging the ruling of the tribunal in the Supreme Court, where it hopes to rely on earlier rulings by various authorities. Already it is struggling with transfer pricing adjustments and the expiry of a tax holiday at the year end and such rulings only compound the difficulties for business.

(Mr Doshi is a partner, International Tax& Advisory Services, at SK Parekh, Chartered Accountants)
 

User

COMMENTS

Prakash

6 years ago

Hi,

Isn't the sub-title different from the content of the article ? I think it is a mistake due to overlook. The sub title should convey 'it is characterised as sale of licence instead of sale of product'.

REPLY

Debashis Basu

In Reply to Prakash 6 years ago

Thanks for pointing out the error.
We have changed it

Ramanand

6 years ago

The tax officer is correct in stating that shrink wrapped IT product transactions are actually licences rather than product sales. The software companies actually have a bold statement on every End User License Agreement that what the user is getting is a 'Non Exclusive License to use the software'. There is no transfer of ownership in the transaction. There is no property/goods acquired by the purchaser. Hence, all software 'sales' should be subject to the royalty income tax rather than sales tax.
Software companies have religiously held that they 'own' the exclusive rights to the software and in fact the software is their 'Intellectual Property'. Now is the time for them to pay the tax due to use of the property.

REPLY

Prakash

In Reply to Ramanand 6 years ago

If it is a 'sale of licence', then why levy "VAT" on it which is supposed to be tax on 'GOODS', i.e. product ? This is a clear contradiction of interpretations of software sale. Software sale worldover is treated as Product Sale. Not only that, in USA, if the same is bought over the net and delivered as 'download', then VAT or Sales Tax is not levied.

Ramanand

In Reply to Prakash 6 years ago

Indeed, dual tax should not apply. Software is either a 'good' on which taxes related to goods should apply or a 'service' on which taxes related to services should apply or its a 'license' on which taxes related to royalty income should apply.
Tax department should immediately withdraw all forms of sales and service taxes (incl VAT) on shrink wrapped software and apply only royalty income tax. Charging both forms of tax serves only to confuse and weaken tax dept.s case of software being a license transfer.
Also, since royalty income tax is due on account of intellectual property ownership of the software by the company, the same cannot be passed on to users along the lines of sales tax/service tax/VAT.

Pranab desires GST rollout together with DTC

New Delhi: With the introduction of proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) all set to miss the timeframe of 1 April 2011, the government today expressed desire to roll it out together with the Direct Tax Code (DTC) from 2012-13, reports PTI.

Addressing a seminar on GST, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, however, admitted that there are some problems in the way of implementing the new indirect tax system.

He said issues relating to constitution amendments required to roll out the new indirect tax system remain to be sorted out with states.

Mr Mukherjee said the Centre is willing to consider phased roll out of GST and hence suggested three-year time frame to ultimately roll out one GST rate for all goods and services.

“I also desire to simultaneously roll out GST (along with DTC),” the finance minister said at a seminar organised by government auditor Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

DTC refers to Direct Taxes Code, which is slated to replace archaic Income Tax Act, from 1 April 2012.

GST, on the other hand, is expected to replace state-level VAT and excise duty as well as services tax on the Centre's front, besides local taxes, cesses and surcharges.

The finance minister said the revised DTC bill will be tabled in Parliament after standing committee gives its recommendation and hoped that it would be implemented from 1 April 2012, as scheduled.

However, the roll out of GST has already missed the earlier deadline of 1 April 2010, while the government's keenness to implement it from 1 April 2011 is also all set to be missed.

The finance minister admitted some problems relating to constitution amendment bill remains to be thrashed out with states.

The Empowered Committee of state finance ministers has not come out with any consensus view on the Centre’s proposal on constitution amendment bill for roll out of GST.

Some states, mainly BJP-ruled and a few others, oppose the Centre’s proposal to have a GST council which will be empowered to effect changes in the indirect tax system.

The council is proposed to be headed by Union finance minister and all states are suggested to be its members.

The finance minister said in multi-party, multi-ethnic country like India, divergent views are bound to occur and hoped that consensus would be found in Empowered Committee over the issue.

The division was so much, that the last meeting of the committee held earlier this month skipped the issue of constitution amendments altogether.

Constitution amendments are required in GST since the Centre cannot impose tax beyond manufacturing, and states cannot levy service tax under the present scheme of things.

User

Hike of Rs2 in petrol price likely this week

New Delhi: A hike of about Rs2 per litre in petrol prices is on cards this week following international crude oil prices touching $90 per barrel mark, reports PTI.

“We would have raised petrol price yesterday ... We had the oil ministry consent to hike prices by Rs1.90-Rs1.95 per litre immediately after the winter session of Parliament ended yesterday, but at the last moment we are asked to wait for one or two more days,” an official of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), the nation's largest fuel retailer, said.

IOC and other state retailers Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL) are losing Rs4.17 per litre on selling petrol as raw material (crude oil) cost has climbed to $90 per barrel.

A similar hike in diesel rates is likely to be considered by an Empowered Group of Ministers headed by Pranab Mukherjee on 22nd December.

The basket of crude oil India buys was at $89.34 per barrel yesterday. It has averaged $88.47 per barrel in December as against about $79 a barrel at the time of last hike in petrol price on 9th November.

“International prices are on the rise leading to widening of gap between domestic retail price and their cost of production,” he said, adding the oil firms were pushing for about Rs2.50 per litre hike in prices while the political leadership is willing to concede only Rs0.95-Rs1.05 a litre.

Even though petrol price was freed from the government control in June, state-run retailers informally consult the oil ministry before revising domestic rates.

They had on 9th November raised petrol price by Rs0.32 per litre to Rs52.91 a litre in Delhi even through the desired increase was about Rs1.1 per litre.

Since 26th June, when petrol price was deregulated, IOC, BPCL and HPCL have revised rates only four times even though the crude oil has jumped from $73-$74 per barrel at that time to $90 a barrel currently, the official said.

On diesel, the three firms are losing about Rs5 a litre.

A fuel price hike was planned after the winter session of Parliament ended on 13th December. The last hike in petrol price on 9th November had happened just before the winter session of Parliament began.

If prices are not revised, IOC, BPCL and HPCL are likely to end the fiscal with close to Rs67,000 crore revenue loss on sale of diesel, domestic LPG and kerosene below cost.

The oil retailers lose Rs272.19 on the sale of every 14.2-kg LPG cylinder and Rs17.72 per litre of kerosene.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)