Amazonがクラウドコンピューティングサービスで受け取った対価はロイヤリティでも技術サービス料（FTS）でもない

開催：

デリー高等裁判所

事案：

所得税局長（国際課税担当1）対 Amazon Web Services, Inc. 事件

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

納税者は米国で設立された法人であり、同国に居住者としての納税義務を有している。納税者は、インドの事業体からクラウドコンピューティングサービスの提供に対する対価を受領した。査定官（AO）は、当該金額は所得税法およびインド・米国租税条約（DTAA）に基づき、ロイヤリティおよび技術サービス料（FTS）として課税対象となると判断した。

Hon’ble High Court held that 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’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. 

したがって、受領した支払いは、インド・米国租税条約第12条(3)の定義におけるロイヤリティとはみなされない。よって、本控訴は棄却される。

1. Brief Facts of the case:

• Amazon Web Services（以下「納税者」）は、米国で設立された法人であり、同国に居住者としての納税義務を有している。

• 納税者は、インドの事業体からクラウドコンピューティングサービスの提供に対する対価を受領した。

• 査定官の見解によれば、当該金額は所得税法およびインド・米国租税条約に基づき、ロイヤリティおよび技術サービス料（FTS）として課税対象となる。

• 納税者は、当該受領金は標準的なクラウドコンピューティングサービスの提供に対するものであり、ロイヤリティとしてもFTSとしても課税対象ではないと主張した。そのため、納税者は申告を行わなかった。また、納税者の顧客も同様の理由から、所得税法第195条に基づく源泉徴収を行わずに料金を支払っていた。

• 査定官（AO）は所得税法第148条に基づき通知を発行し、2014-15年度および2016-17年度の再査定手続きを開始した。

• 査定官は、納税者の総所得を査定する査定案を作成した。納税者は紛争解決パネル（DRP）に異議を申し立てたが、棄却された。当該指示に基づき、査定官は最終査定命令を発行し、納税者の課税所得を決定した。

• 納税者は当該命令に対し、所得税控訴審判所（ITAT）に不服を申し立てた。控訴は認められ、ITATは受領した金額がロイヤリティにもFTSにも該当しないとの判断に基づき、査定命令を取り消した。

• これを受け、税務当局はITATの決定を不服として、デリー高等裁判所に令状訴訟を提起した。

2. 関連する法的抜粋

関連する法的規定を以下に再掲する。

1. インド・米国租税条約第12条の関連抜粋：

「3. 本条において『ロイヤリティ』という用語は、以下を意味する：

(a) 文学、芸術、または科学的著作物（映画、またはラジオやテレビ放送に関連して使用されるフィルム、テープ、その他の複製手段を含む）の著作権、特許権、商標権、意匠、モデル、計画、秘密の公式または工程の使用、もしくは使用する権利に対する対価として受領されるあらゆる種類の支払い。また、産業、商業、または科学的経験に関する情報に対する対価、および生産性、使用、または処分に依存する当該権利または財産の譲渡から得られる利益を含む。」

「使用、または処分に依存する当該権利または財産の譲渡から得られる利益を含む。」

(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.