El importe recibido por Amazon por servicios de computación en la nube no es ni regalía ni FTS

Sostenido por

Honorable Tribunal Superior de Delhi

En el asunto de

M/s El Comisionado de Impuestos sobre la Renta - Tributación Internacional-1 contra Amazon Web Services, Inc.

(ITA 150/2025 y CM APPL. 29405/2025)

El contribuyente es una empresa constituida en un estado de los EE. UU. y posee residencia fiscal en dicho país. El contribuyente recibió una suma de entidades indias por la prestación de servicios de computación en la nube. El funcionario evaluador (AO) sostuvo que dicho importe está sujeto a impuestos como regalías y honorarios por servicios técnicos (FTS) bajo la Ley, así como según el Convenio para evitar la doble imposición (DTAA) entre India y EE. UU.

El Honorable Tribunal Superior sostuvo que los servicios ofrecidos por el contribuyente son servicios estandarizados a los que puede acceder cualquiera de sus clientes. El contribuyente opera una plataforma de computación en la nube que comprende esencialmente hardware y software. Los clientes del contribuyente no adquieren ningún derecho a utilizar la infraestructura y el software del contribuyente para fines de explotación comercial. Los cargos pagados por los clientes del contribuyente corresponden a la prestación de servicios que el contribuyente ofrece utilizando sus equipos y otros activos patentados. El contribuyente no transfiere ninguna parte de sus equipos o derechos de propiedad intelectual a favor de sus clientes para su uso.

Por lo tanto, los pagos recibidos no pueden considerarse regalías según el significado del Artículo 12(3) del DTAA entre India y EE. UU. En consecuencia, se desestiman los recursos.

1. Breve resumen de los hechos del caso:

• Amazon Web Services ("el contribuyente") es una empresa constituida en un estado de los Estados Unidos de América y posee residencia fiscal en dicho país;

• El contribuyente recibió ciertas sumas de dinero de entidades indias por la prestación de servicios de computación en la nube.

• Según el funcionario evaluador, dicho importe está sujeto a impuestos como regalías y honorarios por servicios técnicos [FTS] bajo la Ley, así como según el DTAA entre India y EE. UU.

• El contribuyente sostuvo que dichos ingresos corresponden a la prestación de servicios estándar de computación en la nube y no están sujetos a impuestos ni como regalías ni como FTS. Por lo tanto, el contribuyente no presentó su declaración. Asimismo, los clientes del contribuyente remitieron los cargos sin retener ningún impuesto bajo la Sección 195 de la Ley por la misma razón.

• El funcionario evaluador (AO) emitió notificaciones bajo la Sección 148 de la Ley e inició procedimientos de reevaluación para los años fiscales (AY) 2014-15 y 2016-17.

• El AO emitió el borrador de la orden de evaluación determinando la renta total del contribuyente. El contribuyente presentó una objeción ante el Panel de Resolución de Disputas (DRP); sin embargo, esta fue rechazada. De acuerdo con dichas directrices, el AO emitió las órdenes de evaluación finales y determinó la renta del contribuyente sujeta a impuestos.

• El contribuyente presentó un recurso contra dicha orden ante el ITAT. El recurso fue admitido y el ITAT anuló la orden de evaluación, basándose en su conclusión de que los importes recibidos por el contribuyente no constituían ni regalías ni FTS.

• En consecuencia, la Administración presentó un recurso contencioso ante el Honorable Tribunal Superior de Delhi impugnando la orden dictada por el ITAT.

2. Relevant Legal Extract

A continuación, se reiteran las disposiciones legales pertinentes para su referencia:

1. Extracto pertinente del Artículo 12 del DTAA entre India y EE. UU.:

“3. El término “regalías” tal como se utiliza en este Artículo significa:

(a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on film, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, including gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity,

use, or disposition thereof, and

(b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8.

“4. For purposes of this Article, “fees for included services” means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including through the provision of services of technical or

other personnel) If such services:

(a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property, or information for which a payment described in paragraph 3 is received; or

(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.”

Read Also: CBDT Issued New Guidelines for Processing of Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing ITR

3. Contentions of the Assessee

The Assessee contended that:

• It has standardized and automated cloud computing services to its customers, and any person desiring to avail such services is required to enter into a standardized contract electronically, in respect of the said services. 

4. Contention of the Revenue

The Revenue contended that:

• It has examined certain clauses of the Agreement and concluded that the Assessee is providing a host of services / intellectual property to its customers. 

• The Assessee provides the customers with Services Offerings and Application Program Interface [API] to enable the customers to develop further content and use existing content for their business. 

• In terms of the Agreement, service offerings mean Services (including associated APIs), the “AWS Content”, the “AWS Marks”, and the “AWS Site”. Further, the Agreement also includes a provision for support services to be rendered by the Assessee.

• Therefore, the AO held that the Assessee was providing technical support to its customers and also making available technology, and therefore, the fees received by it were taxable as FTS under the Act as well as FIS under Article 12 of the India-US DTAA. 

• Also, the Service Offering covered trademarks, service marks, and concluded that the Assessee was providing copyright and trademark services to its customers for commercial exploitation and therefore, qualifies as royalty.

5. Order of the Hon’ble ITAT

The Hon’ble ITAT held that:

• The Agreement did not entail transfer of any technology, skill, technical know-how, or process with the meaning of Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. 

• The same also did not entail transfer of any right to commercially exploit the Assessee’s Intellectual Property Rights [IPR]. 

• Thus, the consideration for cloud computing services does not constitute royalty within the scope of Article 12(3) or 12(4)(a) of the India-US DTAA.

6. Analysis & Findings by the Hon’ble High Court

Hon’ble High Court made the following findings and analysis:

• The principal issue in the given case is whether the amounts received by the Assessee from Indian entities for providing its services are taxable under the Act. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings after receiving information from one of the service recipients that foreign remittances were made to the Assessee towards “Hosting and Bandwidth Charges” without deducting any withholding tax.

• In the given case, the AO has not proposed to tax any business income attributable to the Assessee’s permanent establishment [PE] in India. There is no allegation that the Assessee has a PE in India. 

• The controversy is whether the amounts received by the Assessee for its services could be termed as ‘FTS’ or ‘royalties’.

• It is necessary to understand that the services offered by the Assessee are standardised services that can be availed by any of its customers. The Assessee operates a cloud computing platform, which essentially comprises hardware as well as software. 

• The Assessee provides cloud services for its customers to build and develop their content. 

• Admittedly, the Agreement does not entail transferring of any skill, knowledge, or know-how by the Assessee to its customers, but lends support to its customers for the purposes of enabling the customers to use its cloud computing platform.

• As per the Agreement, ‘Service Offerings’ are defined as:

“Service Offerings” means the Services (including associated APIs), the AWS Content, the AWS Marks, the AWS Site, and any other product or service provided by us under this Agreement. Service Offerings do not include Third Party Content.”

• As per the agreement, the customer can access and use the cloud computing service; they do not acquire any right or title or any IPR that would entitle them to exploit or commercially monetize the said assets on their own.

• Further, the Agreement spells out that the customers are solely responsible for the development, content, operation, maintenance, and use of their Content. 

• The AO has held that “Service Offerings” mean the AWS content, the AWS Marks, the AWS Site, and other services provided under the Agreement.

• As per the agreement, the AWS Content is made available by the Assessee only in connection with its services or on the AWS Site to allow access to the services.  However, the customers are not provided any right to commercially exploit the same.

• AWS Content is provided only to allow access and use of its services. The same would include documentation, sample code, software libraries, command line tools, and other related technology.

• Thus, the said content is confined to facilitate the access and avail the Assessee’s services. It would be erroneous to assume that the Assessee derives any proprietary right in respect of the AWS Content.

• As per the Agreement, the services offered by the Assessee do not entail transferring of any skill, knowledge, technology, or process to its customers. The cloud computing models indicate that the Assessee has developed an infrastructure and permits the customers to access the hardware and software for developing their content.

• There is no cavil that the customers do not control the cloud computing hardware or software. They also have no right to commercially exploit the same.

• The expression “use” or “right to use” as mentioned in Article 12(3) of the India-US DTAA is to be used narrowly. The scope of royalties under Article 12(3) of the India-US DTAA does not extend to cover charges for services, which are delivered by an assessee by use of scientific equipment. 

• In the present case, it is clear that the cloud computing hardware and software are used by the Assessee to render its services, which are availed by its customers.

• The AO’s conclusion that the provision of such service would amount to grant of the ‘right to use’ scientific equipment and therefore, the payments made were covered under the definition of ‘royalty’ under the Act as well as under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-US DTAA is erroneous.

• There is no doubt that the Assessee grants access to standard and automated facilities, which provide computer power, storage, data, and other services that may be required by customers for their computing needs. 

• However, there is no material to establish that a grant of such service entails the transfer of any technical know-how, skill, knowledge, or process. The customers of the Assessee do not acquire any right to commercially exploit any of the Assessee’s IPRs. The provision of cloud computing services does not entail placing any hardware at the exclusive disposal of the customer. The Assessee grants access to standard and automated services, which are available online.

• Customers can select from the services offered according to their needs. As explained by the Assessee, cloud computing provides an effective alternative for customers to use cloud computing services instead of buying, owning, and maintaining their own data centres and servers.

• After examining the Agreement and appreciating the scope of services, the learned Tribunal found that the Assessee’s customers are granted only a non-exclusive and non-transferable license to access the standard automated services offered by the Assessee. 

• Further, the Assessee does not provide the source code of the licensed software to the customers. The Assessee’s customers have no right to exploit the Assessee’s IPR. 

7. Final Order by the Hon’ble High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that:

• We find no merit in the contention that the amount received by the Assessee for providing services would be taxable as equipment royalty. As noted before, the Assessee’s customers do not acquire any right to use the infrastructure and software of the Assessee for the purposes of commercial exploitation. 

• The charges paid by the Assessee’s customers are for availing services, which the Assessee provides by using its proprietary equipment and other assets. No part of its equipment or IPRs is alienated by the Assessee in favour of its customers for their use. 

• Therefore, the payments received cannot be considered as royalties within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the India-US DTAA. 

• In our view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.