Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence v. CIT: why payments for shrink-wrapped software are not 'royalty'

The Supreme Court's judgment of 2 March 2021 in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax — decided by a three-judge bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hemant Gupta and B.R. Gavai, JJ. — disposed of a batch of over 80 connected appeals and brought to a close nearly two decades of conflicting authority on a single question: when an Indian resident pays a non-resident supplier for computer software, is that payment "royalty," attracting withholding tax under the Income-tax Act and the relevant tax treaties, or is it simply the price of a product?

The four categories of transactions

The appeals before the Court fell into four broad fact patterns, each involving payment for computer software but through a different commercial route:

1. Software purchased directly by an Indian end-user from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer.
2. Software purchased by an Indian distributor from a foreign, non-resident supplier, for onward resale to Indian end-users.
3. Software purchased by a foreign, non-resident distributor from a foreign, non-resident supplier, for resale to Indian distributors or end-users.
4. Software affixed onto hardware and sold as an integrated unit by non-resident suppliers to Indian distributors or end-users.

Across all four categories, the Assessing Officers had proceeded on the footing that what was being remunerated was the "use of a copyright" — and had, accordingly, held the Indian payers liable under Section 201 for failure to deduct tax at source under Section 195. The Karnataka High Court had largely sustained that view; other High Courts had gone the other way, producing a genuine conflict that the Supreme Court set out to resolve.

The statutory and treaty architecture

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 deems income by way of royalty, payable by a resident, to accrue or arise in India — bringing it within the charging net and, correspondingly, within the withholding machinery of Section 195, which obliges a person paying any sum chargeable under the Act to a non-resident to deduct tax at source. Explanation 2 defines "royalty" to include consideration for the transfer of, or the granting of a licence in respect of, any copyright. In 2012, Parliament inserted Explanation 4 with retrospective effect from 1976, purporting to clarify that the transfer of a right to use computer software falls within that definition "regardless of the medium through which such right is transferred."

That statutory expansion does not operate in isolation. Section 90(2) provides that where India has entered into a DTAA with another country, the provisions of the Act apply to the assessee only to the extent they are more beneficial than the provisions of the treaty. Where a non-resident supplier is resident of a country with which India has a DTAA — and the definition of "royalty" in that treaty's Article 12 is narrower than the amended domestic definition — the treaty definition governs, by the assessee's election. The DTAA definitions before the Court, tracking the OECD Model Convention, restrict royalty to payments for the use of, or the right to use, a copyright — not to payments for a copyrighted product itself.

Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 anchors that distinction. It enumerates the exclusive rights that constitute "copyright" in a literary work (which, by statutory definition, includes a computer programme) — to reproduce, to issue copies to the public, to make derivative works, to communicate to the public. Section 52(1)(aa) carves out, as a permitted act not amounting to infringement, the making of copies or adaptations of a computer programme by a lawful possessor, where necessary for the purpose for which it was supplied.

The Court's task was to determine which side of that line — copyright versus copyrighted article — the payments in each category fell on.

The reasoning

The Court's analysis proceeded through a close reading of the EULAs and distribution agreements actually before it, rather than any generalised theory of software licensing. What those agreements permitted was installation, use for the software's intended purpose, and — where a distributor was involved — resale of copies to further end-users. They did not confer any right to reproduce the underlying work for commercial exploitation, create derivative works, sub-license the copyright, or otherwise deal with the software as copyright owner. The restrictions in the EULAs — against reverse engineering, against sub-licensing the copyright itself, against modification beyond the confines of Section 52(1)(aa) — were, the Court held, protective conditions incidental to a sale of goods, not indicia of a licence under copyright law. The Court repeatedly emphasised that the character of a transaction has to be gathered from the substance of the agreement as a whole, not from an isolated clause read out of context.

The distinction the Court drew — between a copyright and a copyrighted article — traces to established case law and to the commentary on Article 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, which the Court treated as persuasive interpretive material for the DTAA definitions even where India had entered reservations on particular paragraphs. On the Commentary's own terms, a payment is royalty only where the transferee acquires a right to exploit the copyright commercially; a payment merely to use a copy of a copyrighted product, restricted to the transferee's own use, is business income, not royalty.

Applying that framework, the Court found that none of the four categories involved the transfer of any Section 14 right. The Indian distributors and end-users obtained copies for their own use or for straightforward resale — precisely the dealing that Section 52(1)(aa) itself treats as non-infringing, underscoring that no separate licensing of copyright was needed for the transaction to function commercially at all.

On the retrospectivity of Explanation 4, the Court held that a provision inserted into domestic law, however framed as clarificatory, cannot enlarge the meaning of an undefined treaty term to the detriment of a non-resident assessee without a corresponding amendment to the treaty itself. Because Section 90(2) preserves the more beneficial treaty position, Explanation 4 could not be read into the DTAA definitions the payments were tested against.

The consequence was that the payments in each of the four categories, having never crossed into royalty at all, gave rise to no income chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident recipients in India — and, absent a chargeable sum, the payer bore no obligation under Section 195 to deduct tax at source, and no consequence could follow under Section 201.

Why it matters

The judgment is not narrowly about tax mechanics; it is a considered statement on how Indian copyright law characterises transactions in software, tested against the machinery of withholding tax and treaty override. Three propositions carry forward. First, the copyright/copyrighted-article distinction is now settled as the operative test for characterising software payments under Indian tax treaties — a taxpayer-favourable position that reversed several High Court and Authority for Advance Rulings decisions treating any payment referencing software as inherently royalty-flavoured. Second, the judgment is a clear illustration of Section 90(2) doing real work: domestic statutory expansions of a charging definition do not automatically flow through to treaty-protected assessees, and a retrospective "clarificatory" amendment cannot defeat that protection. Third, the ruling reaffirms that the OECD Commentary remains a live interpretive resource for construing DTAA terms even where India has recorded reservations — a methodological point with consequences well beyond software royalty disputes.

The Revenue's subsequent review petition against the judgment was dismissed, and the ruling has attained finality; it remains the controlling authority on the characterisation of cross-border software payments under Indian law.

Related on Valkya

• Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
• Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India
• Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2007)
• Bellsonica Auto Component India v. ACIT (2026): a transfer-pricing royalty adjustment must…
• Tiger Global International II Holdings v. AAR: how the Supreme Court read GAAR over the…
• Bharti Cellular v. ACIT: no Section 194-H TDS on distributor margins

Sources

• Supreme Court of India, Registry office report — Review Petition (C.) Nos. 1422-1497 of 2021, confirming the C.A. Nos. 8733-8734 of 2018 judgment dated 02.03.2021 in C.I.T. & Anr. v. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.
• LiveLaw: Amounts Paid By Indian Companies To Use Foreign Software Not 'Royalty'; Not Income Taxable In India; No TDS Liability — Supreme Court
• Bar & Bench: Cross-border payments for sale of software not taxable as 'Royalty' — Supreme Court judgment