In a significant judgement, the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amazon Web Service held that payments for cloud computing services to AWS do not constitute “royalty”(one of the reasons being the absence of any commercial exploitation of IP rights involved). Rupam and Kartik analyse this judgement, explaining how it marks a pivotal moment in India’s approach to taxing cross-border digital transactions. Rupam is a final-year law student at NLSIU, Bangalore, and a Foundation for International Tax Scholar 2024 with a deep-rooted interest in international tax. Kartik is a final-year student at the National Law School of India University. His previous posts can be accessed here.
(No) Royalty in the Clouds: Between Copyright and Consumption
By Rupam Dubey and Kartik Sharma
In a significant judgment (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amazon Web Service) that clarifies the tax treatment of digital services, the Delhi High Court has held that payments made by Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Jasper Infotech) to Amazon Web Services Inc. (AWS) for cloud computing services do not constitute “royalty” or “fees for included services” (FIS) under Article 12 of the India–United States Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Nor, in the absence of a permanent establishment (PE) of AWS in India, are such payments taxable under Section 9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA). This ruling by the Delhi High Court marks a pivotal moment in India’s evolving approach to the taxation of cross-border digital transactions, where, it draws a critical line between the access to digital resources and the ownership or control over them — a distinction that has become central in the digital economy.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose when Snapdeal paid AWS for infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) — including access to virtual computing, data storage, and networking infrastructure — without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer reopened assessments and treated these payments as royalty, citing Explanation 2(iv) to Section 9(1)(vi) of the ITA and Article 12(3) of the DTAA. The Revenue argued that AWS customers accessed high-end computing infrastructure and proprietary software, which amounted to the “use of, or the right to use” industrial equipment or copyrighted software. Additionally, it claimed that AWS’s support materials and technical documentation effectively “made available” technical knowledge to customers, thereby satisfying the FIS test under Article 12(4)(b) of the treaty.
AWS disputed this characterization, maintaining that it merely provided globally uniform, automated cloud services that allowed users to access computing resources on a pay-as-you-go basis. At no point did customers receive proprietary software or hardware, nor did they gain physical or legal control over AWS’s infrastructure. The license provided was limited, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, and revocable, with strict restrictions on reproduction, reverse engineering, or distribution. AWS asserted that the payments were for access to computing capacity—not for any transfer of intellectual property or ownership in equipment.
The Delhi High Court’s Rationale
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had earlier ruled in AWS’s favour, concluding that mere access to software functionality or infrastructure does not equate to a transfer of copyright or proprietary rights required for royalty characterization. The Delhi High Court upheld this view and rejected the Revenue’s claim that the payments constituted equipment royalty. The Court noted that AWS retained full control over its infrastructure throughout, and customers merely accessed resources over the internet without obtaining physical possession or control. This lack of “possession or control” meant that there was no “use of, or right to use” equipment as required under Explanation 2(iv) to Section 9(1)(vi).
Secondly, the Court dismissed the software-royalty argument. It referred to the landmark ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC)] which emphasized that a limited, purpose-specific license to access software does not constitute a transfer of rights akin to those of a copyright holder. Since AWS’s license strictly barred such actions, the threshold was not met.
Third, the Court found no merit in the FIS characterization in AWS’s case, the service was delivered through automated means without human intervention or transfer of know-how. Generic customer support and help documentation did not amount to a transfer of technical knowledge. Finally, the Court concluded that AWS’s income was in the nature of business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA. In the absence of a PE in India, such income could not be taxed in India.
Doctrinal Analysis: What is Royalty?
The Court’s finding that AWS customers do not receive proprietary rights or control over the underlying software or hardware is especially important. It emphasizes that AWS retains exclusive control over its infrastructure and merely allows customers to interact with an automated, self-service platform. The decision highlights that incidental or functional access to computing resources — without a transfer of rights in the sense contemplated under the Copyright Act — does not amount to a “use” of software that triggers royalty taxation. The Court also clarified that technical materials like support guides or manuals, unless they result in the transfer of underlying expertise or technical capability to the user, are insufficient to meet the “make available” requirement under Article 12(4)(b) of the treaty.
An understanding of the specific implications of this ruling for IP law should commence from a breakdown of the text of Article 12(3) of DTAA. A.12(3)(a) envisages royalties as consideration received for (i) the use of, or (ii) the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, and other kinds of IP such as trademark, patents, etc. Note that scientific work is not a recognized category of work in the Copyright Act. The software services that end up being the centrepiece of tax litigation would fall under the rubric of literary works, since computer programs are a subset of literary works under s. 2(o) of Copyright Act. Portions (i) and (ii) of the relevant article imply that royalty will accrue only in situations where the copyright as an IP asset is being utilized or a right to use it has been granted to the client. The Court, its analysis of AWS’s concerned cloud computing service, noted that the customers do not acquire any rights or title or IPR in the assets that would in turn allow them to exploit them.
There is no transference of any skill, knowledge, technology, etc to the customers and do not have any control over the cloud computing hardware or software. The court also noted that the source code of the software is also not provided to the customers. Consequently, the expression “use” or “right to use” as used in the treaty has to be construed in a narrow fashion. Such an interpretive approach stands in contrast to the usual interpretive canons applied to taxation statutes that stipulate the aim to be that of maximization of revenue.
There is yet another crucial yet very basic concept that completes the rationale behind the court’s decision, one that finds judicial recognition in the SC’s ruling in Engineering Analysis: the distinction between copyright and the copyrighted article. Article 12(3)(a), to reiterate, uses the expression ‘copyright of a literary work’, and not just ‘literary work’. Therefore, what has to be involved is ‘copyright’, which as defined in section 14 of the Copyright Act, refers to exclusive the rights to reproduce, distribute, communicate to public, etc. (depending on the kind of work that is in contention) that are linked to the ‘works’. A fiction book, to take a simple illustration, is different from the copyright that subsists in it. When I purchase a page-turner thriller, I only become the owner of that copy of the book. The copyright still remains with the copyright holder, whoever it be, in that situation. The same logic is at play here when the court is reckoning with AWS’ cloud computing services. The customer is not interacting with any of the copyright element of the service, but is merely availing of the features of what the service provider is placing at its use. To construe it otherwise would be like saying that when I read that fiction book, I am exploiting or using the copyright-holder’s exclusive intangible rights in that literary work. Now this crude analogy is not to be taken to mean that there can be no situations where IP rights can be in question. What the court’s reasoning definitely tells us is that the decision would be fact-specific and would hinge on a nuanced understanding of the software service/infrastructure involved. For a more detailed exposition of the issue, the reader is most certainly advised to peruse Engineering Analysis Centre and another Delhi HC ruling, DIT v Infrasoft. The takeaway rule remains that not any kind of commercial benefit/exploitation stands to qualify as royalty; it has to be that of the intellectual property rights. To use the book analogy (I promise, for last time), the mere factum of I benefitting commercially from the insights derived from a book does not render it a situation covered by Article 12(3)(a).
Policy Implications: OECD, UN Article 12B & the Future of Digital Taxation
The approach of the Delhi High Court aligns with the OECD Commentary on Article 12, which states that royalty income arises only when there is a grant of rights akin to those enjoyed by the owner of intellectual property — such as the right to reproduce, modify, or distribute. Merely accessing software or infrastructure on a consumption basis does not qualify. That being said, the ruling arrives at a time when international tax norms are in flux. Several bilateral treaties based on the UN Model Convention include broader definitions of royalty, potentially encompassing payments for software usage or digital access. The UN Tax Committee has gone further, proposing a new Article 12B that would allow source countries to levy tax on “automated digital services” — a category that include cloud computing platforms like AWS. However, the UN Commentary clarifies that Article 12B will not apply in situations where the income is already covered under existing treaty provisions relating to royalties, fees for technical services, or where it is attributable to a permanent establishment (PE). In other words, Article 12B functions as a residual taxing right—applicable only when such income falls outside the scope of Articles dealing with royalties, FTS, or PE-linked profits.
It is to be noted that tax rates under Article 12B is to be levied on a gross basis—i.e., on the amount of payment received—unlike the net basis taxation applicable to PEs, which allows deductions for expenses. The rationale behind gross-based taxation is administrative simplicity and ease of compliance, particularly for cross-border, low-presence digital businesses.
The applicable tax rate is not fixed by the Article but is intended to be negotiated bilaterally between treaty partners. However, the UN Tax Committee has suggested a relatively modest withholding tax rate of 3% to 4%. Compared to other global digital tax initiatives—such as the OECD’s Pillar One proposals or unilateral digital services taxes (DSTs)—Article 12B represents a more streamlined and administratively feasible approach. While it may lack the comprehensive scope of Pillar One, it offers a practical mechanism for source countries to tax digital income where traditional nexus rules fall short.
With increasing pressure on governments to capture value generated by the digital economy, particularly in user jurisdictions, this legal clarity may eventually give way to legislative or treaty-based shifts. As such, while the Delhi High Court’s ruling provides welcome certainty for now, the long-term tax treatment of digital services in India remains open to reform and renegotiation.