DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 205/BANG/2015

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by both the assessee, Google India Pvt. Ltd., and the revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Department concerning various assessment years. The primary issues revolved around transfer pricing adjustments, rejection of books of accounts, deductions under section 10A, and taxability of payments made to Google Ireland as royalty or fees for technical services (FTS). The Tribunal's decision addressed these issues by referencing previous judgments and agreements, particularly focusing on the nature of the payments made to Google Ireland and the applicability of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal found that the payments could not be characterized as royalty or FTS and thus not taxable in India, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals on these grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302917 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Not Found
• Assessee Lawyers: Not Found
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Double taxation relief; International transaction; Permanent establishment; TDS; Set aside; Ineligible deduction; Capital Gains
• Section: 271(1)(c); 234B; 37(1); 80G; 10B; 143(1); 195; 201; 64; 113; 43; 48; 73; 72; 13; 119; 22

Judgement Text

IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue 1. IT(TP)A No. 68/Bang/2015 2010-11 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E, 4 th Floor, Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560 016. PAN – AACCG0527D The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. 2. IT(TP)A No. 559/Bang/2016 2011-12 3. IT(TP)A No. 387/Bang/2017 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. 4. IT(TP)A No. 2890/Bang/2017 2013-14 5. IT(TP)A No. 3430/Bang/2018 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3, Bangalore. 6. IT(TP)A No. 2301/Bang/2019 2015-16 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3, Bangalore. Revenue’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Revenue Assessee 1. IT(TP)A No. 205/Bang/2015 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E, 4 th Floor, Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560 016. PAN – AACCG 0527D 2. IT(TP)A No. 881/Bang/2016 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2) Bangalore. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 126 Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. Advocate, Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon Advocates Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 08.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: Present appeals have been filed by assessee as well as revenue against the following impugned orders of the Ld.AO. S.No. Assessment Year Date of impugned order 1. 2010-11 30.12.2014 2. 2011-12 29.02.2016 3. 2012-13 31.01.2017 4. 2013-14 30.11.2017 5. 2014-15 28.11.2018 6. 2015-16 28.10.2019 2. It is submitted by the assessee as well as revenue that the captioned appeals have common issues connected with each other on identical facts. The ld. Counsel has filed a chart on the issues vis-à-vis the grounds in respective appeals as under: ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 126 Assessee’s appeals: S.No. Issues Asst. Year Grounds Asst. Year Grounds Asst. Year Grounds Asst. Year Grounds Asst. Year Grounds Asst. Year Grounds 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 1. TP Issues 1-14 1-11 1-15 36-49 1-16 3-16 2. Rejection of Books 15 12 16 28-30 17-18 -- 3. 10A deduction 16-17 13-15 -- -- -- -- 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 3-6, 13, 14, 21, 27 19-22, 27, 32, 33, 35, 33A: ADD GROUND 20,22,23 5. Royalty/FTS 40(a)(i) 22-23 20-21 21-22 7-12, 15- 18, 32-33 23-26, 28- 31, 39, 40 17, 18, 19, 21 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 19-20, 22-26 36-38, 38A Add. Ground 26-31 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 8. Representative assessee -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 9. Claim for deduction – proviso to 40(a)(i) -- -- -- 53-54 (Additional Grounds) 53-54 (Additional Grounds) 38 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 12. Incorrect Refund Calculation 25 -- -- -- -- -- 13. Education Cess -- -- -- 55 (Additional ground) 55 (Additional ground) 43 (Additional ground) 14. Interest u/s. 234B 27 23 28 52 42 39,40 Interest u/s. 234D 26 -- 29 -- -- -- Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). 28 24 30 51 43 42 ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 126 Revenue’s appeals S.No. Issues Asst. Year Grounds Asst. Year Grounds 2010-11 2011-12 1. TP Issues 5-7 2-13 2. Rejection of Books -- -- 3. 10A deduction 2-3 (Covered in favour of GIPL) Last two grounds (Not numbered) (Covered in favour of GIPL) 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) -- -- 5. Royalty/FTS 40(a)(i) -- -- 6. Attribution 4 14 7. 80G -- -- 8. Representative assessee -- -- 9. Claim for deduction – proviso to 40(a)(i) -- -- 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- 12. Incorrect Refund Calculation -- -- 13. Education Cess -- -- 14. Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). -- -- 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore ('Ld AO), Learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing-II), Bangalore (Id TPO') and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('Hon'ble DRP') is not correct as it is based on incorrect assessment of interpretation of facts and law and therefore is bad in ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 126 law and hence, needs to be cancelled. The Appellant also submits that each of the grounds hereinafter are independent and without prejudice to one another. Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld AO/Ld TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have: TRANSFER PRICING (TP) MATTERS Rejection of transfer pricing documentation and making adjustments 1. Erred in rejecting the contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation (i.e., using data available before the due date of filing of return of income) maintained by the Appellant and making adjustments in respect of the following international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs): a) Provision of software development services = Rs. 91,95,38,461; b) Provision of Information Technology Enabled Services CITES') = Rs. 25,67,89,031; and c) Purchase of online advertisement space for distribution to the advertisers in India = Rs. 32.53,45,159. Further, the Ld. TPO erred in adopting an approach different from the predecessors in assessments up to assessment year 2008-09, without any change in facts or circumstances of the transactions. Rejection of use of multiple year data 2. Erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data and using single year data of the comparable companies to determine the arm's length price of the international transactions without appreciating the fact that the same was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks associated with the functions performed are borne by the foreign AEs. b) Erred in not providing adjustments taking into account the functional and risk differences between the international transaction of the Appellant and the comparable transactions in accordance with the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 6 of 126 provisions of Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Grounds specific to comparability analysis of software services transaction 5. Erred in rejecting the Function Asset and Risk ('FAR') analysis of the international transaction relating to provision of software services and re-characterizing the same as Knowledge Process Outsourcing ('KPO') services. 6. Erred in not undertaking an objective search and selecting the following companies as comparables on an ad-hoc basis: a) Eclerx Services Ltd; and b) Genesys International Corporation. Grounds specific to comparability analysis of ITES transactions 7. Erred in not undertaking an objective comparative analysis and inter-alia selecting the following companies as comparable to the ITES of the Appellant: a) Accentia Technologies Ltd; b) Infosys BPO Ltd; and 8. Erred in not undertaking an objective comparative analysis and inter-alia rejecting the following comparable companies: a) Allsec Technologies Ltd; b) Axis IT&T Ltd; c) Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd (Segment) d) CG-Vak Sofware & Exports Ltd (Segment); e) e4e Healthcare business services Pvt Ltd (Segment); f) Jindal Intellicom Pvt Ltd; g) Microgenetics Systems Ltd; h) Microland Ltd (Segment) i) R Systems International Ltd (Segment); Grounds specific to TP adjustments relating to payment for AdWords 9. a) Erred in not undertaking an objective Functions Assets and Risks ('FAR') analysis of the international transactions relating to distribution of online advertisement space and concluding that the Appellant owns marketing intangibles. b) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant performs a limited role in the provision of online advertisement space and that the AEs undertake the key economically significant functions. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 7 of 126 10. Erred in rejecting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMIVF) and determining the ALP by applying Profit Split Method (`PSIVI') as the most appropriate method. 11. Erred in not applying PSM in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 12. Erred in applying PSM, not determining correctly the relative contribution made by the AEs in earning the revenue on the basis of the FAR analysis of the transactions and how such contribution would be evaluated by unrelated enterprises performing comparable functions in similar circumstances. 13. Erred in not determining the combined net profit of the international transactions to be split amongst the enterprises in proportion of their relative contribution. 14. Erred in not evaluating and providing for the relative contribution made by the AEs in the form of extended credit period to the Appellant CORPORATE TAX MATTERS Rejection of Books of accounts 15. Erred in holding that the duly audited books of account of the Appellant are incomplete and incorrect based on conjectures and surmises without appreciating the complete disclosures made in the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant. Re-computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act 16. Erred in concluding that the communication expenses incurred by the Appellant are attributable to delivery of computer software outside India and thereby, reducing the same from export turnover for computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 17. Without prejudice to Ground 16, erred in considering the whole of communication expenses (comprising telephone charges and internet expenses) incurred by the Appellant as attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India for computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Disallowance of payments made to Google Ireland Limited invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act 18. Erred in holding that the amounts payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited for purchase of online advertisement space under the AdWords Program were chargeable to tax in India. 19. Erred in holding that the Appellant, in relation to distribution of advertisement space under the AdWords ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 126 program, create a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment of Google Ireland Limited under Article 5 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 20. Having held that the Appellant was an agent of Google Ireland Limited erred in holding that Appellant 'was a person responsible for paying' any amount to Google Ireland Limited. within the meaning of section 195 of the Act and that the Appellant has failed to deduct tax at source on the amounts payable to Google Ireland Limited. 21. Having held that the Appellant creates a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment of Google Ireland Limited in India, erred in attributing business profits, ignoring the fact that the Ld TPO has determined the arm's length remuneration for the Appellant and hence there was no additional income chargeable to tax in India in the hands of Google Ireland Limited requiring any deduction of tax at source under Section 195 of the Act and hence no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is warranted. 22. Erred in alternatively holding the amount payable towards purchase of advertisement space under the Agreement as either Royalties or Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 23. Erred in upholding that the Appellant was required to deduct tax at source from the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited and in view of its failure to deduct tax, the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited was required to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. OTHERS 24. Erred in considering the eligible MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act at Rs 565,306 as against the eligible brought forward MAT credit of Rs.8,81,87,191. 25. Erred in considering the refund already issued to the Company u/s 143(1) at Rs 9,37,80.480 instead of the actual amount of refund of Rs 6,58,06,480 received by the Appellant thereby increasing the total tax demand. 26. Having erred in considering the refund amount of Rs 9,37,80,480, erred in levying the interest u/s 234D of the Act on refund amount of Rs.9,37,80,480 as against the actual refund received of Rs 6,58,06,480. 27. Erred in imposing the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 126 28. Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains to A.Y. 2010-11 in general. Based on the above, the issues tabulated hereinabove are considered as under: 3. Issue 1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted that the assessee has filed modified tax return(s) in terms of section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and the transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google Ireland for distribution of advertisement space under the AdWords program to the advertisers in India. As per the agreement, assessee was to pay to Google Ireland an amount equal to the excess of the revenue earned by Google India on distribution of advertisement space under the AdWords program. 4.2 Based on the contract, entered into by assessee with Indian advertisers for sale of advertisement space and as per the requirement under the generally accepted accounting principles in India (IGAAP), the assessee disclosed its advertisement revenue on a net basis in profit and loss account. Further it was submitted that in the profit and loss account, it was clearly stated that the advertisement revenue disclosed is net of amount payable by the assessee to Google Ireland for purchase of advertisement space. 4.3 The Ld. Counsel thus submitted that, the revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee which has been duly audited based on conjectures and surmises without appreciating the disclosures made. 4.4 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee reflected the receipts towards AdWord Program from various customers net of the distribution fees payable to GIL, though the TDS is claimed on the gross receipts. The Ld.AO therefore as a first step rejected the books of accounts u/s. 145. He submitted that the same ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 126 situation arose for A.Y. 2008-09 in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 374 & 362/Bang/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 by order dated 31.03.2023. 4.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. 4.6 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Identical issue has been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 (supra) wherein this Tribunal held as under: “18. ...........The ld AR during the course of hearing drew our attention to the observations of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal where by virtue of Grounds No. 2 to 4 (refer para 176 of order dated 11.05.2018) the issue was decided in favour of the Assessee. It was further brought to our attention that the said finding of this Hon’ble Tribunal was never challenged in appeal by the Department and that this issue was not the subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which means that the same has attained finality. From these factual findings and given that there is no adverse finding with regard to the books of accounts, in our view the action of the AO by rejecting the books to recast the P&L with an intention to disallow distribution fee paid by the Assessee to GIL is not tenable. The grounds 2 to 4 with regard to rejection of books of accounts are accordingly held in favour of the assessee.” 4.7 Before us, the Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that for the year under consideration, the revenue authorities did not point out any discrepancy in the books of accounts of the assessee. He also submitted that the facts for A.Y. 2008-09 on this issue are identical with the years under consideration. Before us the revenue has not brought anything contrary on record. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 12 of 126 4.8 Respectfully following the view taken by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 (supra), we do not find any reason to uphold the rejection of the books of accounts. Accordingly the grounds raised by assessee on rejection of books of accounts for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 stands allowed. 5. Issue 3: 10A Deduction The Ld.Counsel at the outset has submitted that 10A deduction is raised by the assessee for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 is being not pressed by assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5.1 He further submitted that, in the appeals filed by the revenue, for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12, the issue of ET/TT is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 719 which has upheld the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98. 5.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. 5.3 We note that the issue raised by revenue in the appeals for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 pertains to the computation of deduction u/s. 10A of the act wherein the Ld.AO reduced the communication expenses from the export turnover while computing the eligible profits. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 126 5.4 This issue is no longer resintegra by virtue of the decisions relied by the Ld.Counsel hereinabove. Respectfully following the ratio laid down therein, we direct the Ld.AO to recomputed the eligible profits available for deduction u/s. 10A of the act in the hands of the assessee as per the directions by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the appeals filed by revenue for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 stands dismissed. 6. Issue 4: Dependent agent permanent established 40(a)(ia) Brief facts of the case are as under: 6.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee had entered into agreement with Google Ireland for distribution of advertisement space under the google’s AdWords program in India and as per the agreement, assessee shall pay to Google Ireland a consideration for purchase of such advertisement space under the AdWords at Rs.1,85,68,92,343/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) which was in the nature of advertisement fees to post the advertisement of the advertisers on the server end by the Gooogle Ireland outside India. The Ld. Counsel submitted that, the assessee has been conducting its business of distribution of advertisement space under the AdWords program on its own account on a principal to principal basis and not as an agent or representative of the Google Ireland. 6.2 He submitted that, the revenue authorities concluded that assessee is a Dependent Agent of Google Ireland in India, and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 14 of 126 that as the payment made towards the advertisement space under the AdWords to Google Ireland was without deduction of TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment in India and therefore the payments made by assessee to Google Ireland could not be subjected to tax provisions in India. In support, the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Google Ireland in ITA No. 2845/Bang/2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench for A.Y. 2007- 08 by order dated 28.02.2023. 6.4 The Ld. Counsel submitted that, in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13, Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held that there is no permanent establishment of Google Ireland in India based on various discussions therein. The said view has been expressed in a decision reported in Google India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 302. “37. Therefore, in terms of the international guidance as stated herein, the position regarding taxability of receipts from sale of online advertisement space is clear. Unless the non-resident, who is engaged in sale of online advertisement space, has a PE in India, no portion of receipts earned by it from sale of online advertisement space in India can be brought to tax in India as Act read with the relevant DTAA.” 6.5 This Tribunal in the above decision also emphasised and drew support from the insertion of provisions related to equalization levy inserted by Finance Act, 2016 and observed as under: “38. The above view is also supported by insertion of provisions related to Equalisation Levy (EL) by Finance ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 15 of 126 Act, 2016. The root for the emergence of the EL can be traced to the dynamic business models that have the ability to transcend the link between an income producing activity and a specific location since these business are carried in the cyber place. The PE definition presently is based upon the physical presence criteria. The new business models also created challenges in characterizing the nature of payment - whether the payment is for services or for any IPR and hence royalty or whether it represents pure business profits. Various ITAT decisions, as discussed above, have held that income from sale of advertisement space on a website is not taxable in India if there is no PE of the foreign enterprise in India. It was held that such income is not to be regarded as royalty or FTS. Such tax challenges is addressed by the introduction of EL. Section 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 provides for charge of EL at 6% on consideration for specified services. Section 164(i) of Finance Act, 2016 provides that "specified service" means online advertisement, any provision for digital advertising space or any other facility or service for the purpose of online advertisement and includes any other service as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Thus, online advertisement is now covered under EL. If online advertisement was already covered under definition of royalty, then bringing it as part of EL scheme would not arise.” 6.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the aforesaid case, this Tribunal was seized with the identical issue of payments made by assessee to Google Ireland in respect of the Google AdWords program distribution agreement. 6.7 Further, it was submitted that Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA Nos. 374 & 362/Bang/2013 (supra) on similar issue on identical facts observed and held as under: “19. Now coming to main issue of disallowance of distribution fee u/s.40(a)(i), we notice that the basis on which the revenue has made the disallowance is that the assessee is the DAPE of GIL. The alternative ground of the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 16 of 126 revenue is that the payment is being in the nature of Royalty / FTS. We notice that the issue of taxing the distribution fees by treating the same as Royalty / FTS has already settled in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case from the perspective of applicability of provisions of section 201 and accordingly there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) on this count. Therefore we in this order will restrict our adjudication to whether the assessee is the DAPE of GIL and whether the assessee is required to deduct tax at source u/s.195 on the impugned payments accordingly.” 6.7.1 This Tribunal held that assessee cannot be held to be a dependent agent PE of Google Ireland. This Tribunal further observed as under: “20. To recapitulate the Assessee, during the year under consideration, recorded gross revenue of Rs.167,32,01,618/- from distributing online advertisement space to advertisers in India, out of which it paid Rs.119,82,61,984/- to GIL and retained net revenue of INR 47,49,39,634/-. The case of the revenue is that the assessee being the agent of GIL, the distribution fees is taxable in India i.e. assessee being the PE of GIL and therefore the payment is disallowed u/s.40(a)(i) in the hands of the assessee for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Before proceeding we will look at the relevant Article of DTAA. The term PE is defined in Article 5 of the DTAA and one of the forms of PE is DAPE, which is defined and governed by the provisions of Article 5(6) and 5(8) of the DTAA, reads as under: “6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, where a person - other than an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 8 applies - is acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State, that enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the first- mentioned Contracting State in respect of any activities which that person undertakes for the enterprise, if such a person: (a) has and habitually exercises in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise, unless the activities of such person are limited to those mentioned in paragraph 5 which, if ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 17 of 126 exercised through a fixed place of business, would not make this fixed place of business a permanent establishment under the provisions of that paragraph; or (b) has no such authority, but habitually maintains in the first-mentioned State a stock of goods or merchandise from which he regularly delivers goods or merchandise on behalf of the enterprise; or (c) habitually secures orders in the first-mentioned State, wholly or almost wholly for the enterprise itself or for the enterprise and other enterprises controlling, controlled by, or subject to the same control as that enterprise. ........ 8. An enterprise shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in a Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that State through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business. However, if the activities of such an agent are carried out wholly or almost wholly for the enterprise and the conditions made or imposed between them in their commercial and financial relations differ from those which would have been made or imposed if this had not been the case, that agent shall not be considered to be an agent of an independent status for the purpose of this paragraph.” 21. The plain reading of the above provision would point out to the following requisites, before an Indian entity can be classified as a DAPE of an Irish entity: (i) The Indian entity is broker, general commission agent or any other agent of the Irish entity and is not acting in the ordinary course of its business and is thus not an agent of independent status, (ii) The activities of such Indian entity are carried out wholly or almost wholly for the Irish entity and the conditions made or imposed between the two in their commercial and financial relations differ from those which would been made or imposed if this had not been the case, and (iii) Such Indian entity: (a) has and habitually exercises in India, an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 18 of 126 Irish entity, unless the activities of such Indian entity fall under any of the provision of Article 5(5) of the DTAA, or (b) has no such authority, but habitually maintains in India a stock of goods or merchandise from which he regularly delivers goods or merchandise on behalf of the Irish entity, or (c) habitually secures orders in India, wholly or almost wholly for the Irish entity itself or the Irish entity or any of its related party. 22. Therefore, all the above conditions must be satisfied, in the present case for the Assessee to be characterized as DAPE of GIL and in this regard one needs to examine the terms of Distribution Agreement, as the nature of the relationship should be determined based on such terms. The ld AR during the course of hearing drew our attention to the following clauses of the agreement to contend that the assessee is not a DAPE of GIL. Clause 2.1 that GIL appointed the Assessee as a distributor of Google AdWords Program to advertisers in India. It has been further provided in this clause that Assessee would conduct its business for its own account, in its own name, and not as an agent, employee, partner of franchisee of GIL. Clause 2.2 that the Assessee would market and distribute Google AdWords Program with its reasonable commercial expertise and own sales force and customer service infrastructure. Clause 2.6 that the Assessee would provide after-sales services to advertisers in India. Clause 14 that the Assessee and GIL shall remain independent contractors and nothing in the Distribution Agreement shall be deemed to create any agency, partnership, or joint venture between the Assessee and GIL. It has also been provided in this clause that neither Assessee nor GIL shall have any right or authority to create any obligation on behalf of each other. 23. We further notice that pursuant to the terms of the Distribution Agreement the Assessee entered into contracts with advertisers in India called “Google India Private ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 19 of 126 Limited Advertising Program Terms” and perusal of the sample invoice (page 359 of Paper Book Volume 1) raised by the Assessee on an advertiser shows that the Assessee has raised the invoice and collected payments from the advertiser in its own name and right. It is also noticed that the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case found the Assessee to be the distributor of the Google AdWords Program and therefore, the characterization as a distributor would mean that the Assessee is not an agent as per the findings of the Hon’ble Tribunal. Further the Distribution Agreement between the Assessee and GIL as well as Standard Contract entered into by the Assessee and advertisers in India do not contain any clauses that can lead to the conclusion that the Assessee has any authority to bind GIL. 24. We also notice that the CIT(A) though has confirmed the addition on the ground that the assessee is a DAPE of GIL, has given the following findings which is contrary to the same – • Internal Page 12: The CIT(A) noted the observation of the AO that various clauses of the Distribution Agreement between the Assessee and GIL make it clear that the Assessee is required to run the business on its own account. • Para 5.8 at Internal Page 21: The CIT(A) noted the observations of the AO yet again that the AdWords Program was sold by the Assessee for its own account, in its own name, and not as an agent, employee, partner or franchisee of GIL. • Para 6.8(iii) at Internal Page 39: The CIT(A) has categorically observed in this para that the Assessee is not a conduit or an agent of GIL. • Para 7.6(i) at Internal Page 51: The CIT(A) has observed that the Assessee never brought GIL into the picture for all its transactions and that all the payments had been collected by the Assessee in its own name. 25. It is noticed that inspite of giving the above findings, the CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision by reproducing the AO’s observations and without bringing any contrary evidence on record from his end to prove that the Assessee has habitually concluded contracts on behalf of GIL. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 20 of 126 26. During the course of hearing the ld AR relied on various judicial pronouncements to submit that none of the requirements of Article 5(6) of the DTAA are satisfied since it is necessary for the Assessee to be characterized as DAPE that the conditions of Article 5(6) of the DTAA are satisfied and that burden of proving that an assessee has a PE is on the Department (i) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Formula One World Championship Limited v. CIT, (2017) 390 ITR 199 (ii) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT, (2016) 386 ITR 353 (iii) ADIT v. E-Funds IT Solution Inc., (2017) 399 ITR 34 (Supreme Court) (iv) Reuters Limited v. DCIT, (2015) SCC OnLine ITAT 8760 (Mum-Trib) (v) Taj TV Ltd. v. DCIT, (2022) 136 taxmann.com 278 (Mum-Trib) (vi) ESS Distribution (Mauritius) SNC et Compaginie v. DDIT, (2022) 145 taxmann.com 267 (Delhi-Trib) (vii) DDIT v. B4U International Holdings Ltd., (2012) 23 taxmann.com 372 (Mum-Trib) 27. In view of the above discussion with respect to the clauses in the Distribution agreement between the assessee and GIL, the invoices raised on advertisers and the relevant Articles of DTAA between India and Ireland, we hold that the Assessee cannot be treated as DAPE of GIL. Accordingly the distribution fees paid by the assessee to GIL is not liable for TDS u/s.195 of the Act and therefore no disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) is warranted. Grounds 5 to 9 is held in favour of the assessee.” 6.8 Nothing contrary has been filed by the revenue on this issue distinguishing the above referred observations of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 (supra) and the ld. D.R. has relied on orders passed by authorities below. 6.9 Respectfully following the above view, we hold that assessee cannot be treated as depending agent PE of Google Ireland and that no disallowance could be made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the act. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 21 of 126 Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee in respect of this issue for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2015-16 stands allowed. 7. Issue 5: Royalty / FTS: 7.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the payments that was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the act was also treated as Royalty / FTS by the Ld.AO. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO disallowed the payments as Royalty / FTS by holding the assessee to be a dependent agent PE of Google Ireland. 7.2 We have already held hereinabove that assessee cannot be held to be a dependent agent PE of Google Ireland by relying on decisions of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case. Further, in the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Google India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 302 this Tribunal has already held the payments made by assessee to Google Ireland cannot be considered to be Royalty as per para 39 of the said order. The same view has been taken by another decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of assessee in ITA No. 1190/Bang/2014 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 by order dated 15.12.2022. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced as under: “6.1 With respect to the issue regarding payments made by the assessee to Google Ireland Ltd., being held to be Royalty under the Act read with the Treaty and liability to withhold tax fastened on the assessee, the assessee's representatives fairly conceded before the ld CIT(A) that the issue is covered by CIT(A)'s earlier year order for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13. Following his earlier decision, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 126 7. Further, the AO has observed that M/s. Google Ireland was not beneficial owner of the amount received from the assessee in relation to royalty amount. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that in relation to characterization of amounts payable to M/s. Google Ireland as royalty by placing reliance on earlier order of the ld. CIT(A) in assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 in relation to contention of AO that M/s. Google Ireland is not beneficial owner of receivable from M/s. Google India Ltd., the ld CIT(A) has rejected the same and upheld that M/s. Google Ireland is beneficial owner of the sums received from M/s. Google India Ltd. under the reseller agreement. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on the issue of charaterisation of the amount payable to M/s. Google Ireland as royalty and the revenue is in appeal before us in relation to issue as to whether M/s. Google Ireland is the beneficial owner of the amount received from M/s. Google India Ltd. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in IT(TP)A No.1513 to 1516/Bang/2013 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13, the Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.2022 held as under: 13. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issues involved in these appeals revolve around the taxability of payments received by GIL from the assessee, who is engaged in the business of online advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that the said payments are in the nature of business profits, which are chargeable to tax in Ireland and not in India. Further, since the Department in these proceedings has never alleged that GIL had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 and accordingly by virtue of Article 7(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, the right to tax these profits is solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the I.T.Act for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the I.T.Act while making the subject payment to GIL. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 23 of 126 14. For a proper adjudication of the above issue, it is necessary to briefly explain / examine the overview of the Google Adword Program, the role of the assessee under Adword Program distribution agreement and the service agreement (ITES). The undisputed fact on record is that Google.com is a search engine developed by Google LLC, USA available freely to the world at large providing information on any subject based on the search made by the user. The link to various websites related to the search are provided in the search result. Additionally, Google LLC, USA has also developed a computerised advertising program known as Google AdWords Program. Google Ireland Ltd (GIL) is the exclusive licensee and principal operator of the computerised advertising program i.e., "Google AdWords Program" for the whole world outside the USA. The Google AdWords program displays advertisements on Google's search engine. It has a separate website in which the advertisers have to agree to certain terms and conditions including the consideration payable for the targeted Advertisements and provide appropriate keywords on searching of which the websites of the advertisers would be displayed on top of the Google search engine with the abbreviation "Ad". For instance, pursuant to the search query "Fresh Flower Delivery", website of "Ferns N Petals" is listed two times among websites of various other businesses. The listing of the website of "Ferns N Petals" at the top of the list is a sponsored link accompanied by a small abbreviation "Ad", and the other listing is an organic search result as it does not have any such abbreviation. [Page 318 of paper book 1] This is because, "Ferns N Petals" utilised the "Google AdWords Program" to advertise its business on the Google Search Engine. The targeting of advertisement is achieved by using appropriate keywords, which can be selected only by the Advertiser. The Google AdWords Program contains a glossary of keywords together with helpful suggestions for the Advertiser to select appropriate keywords for his targeted advertisement. Google AdWords Program also contains a number of computer commands, by which the proposed Advertiser can achieve a more focused and particularised targeting, such as geographical or area targeting (advertisement to be shown only in a particular area, say the State of Karnataka) or period targeting (advertisement to be shown only in a certain period) or time targeting (advertisement to be shown only ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 24 of 126 at certain fixed times during the day) or duration targeting (to be shown only for a fixed time duration each time). All these types of targeting are over and above the usual subject targeting and are achieved by simple computer commands, given by the proposed Advertiser on the Google AdWords Program. All these facilities are available on the Google AdWords Program to any member of the public, free of charge, to enable him to formulate a suitable draft advertisement for his product or service. The only requirement is that the proposed Advertiser should have a website of his own / or entity giving particulars about his/ its business. The Google AdWords Program itself gives step-by-step and detailed instructions, so that even a person who has a basic knowledge of computers and internet can create a draft advertisement and target it suitably by using the necessary computer commands (or tools). No payment is made for any use of the Google AdWords Program. After formulating the draft advertisement, the Advertiser is required to upload the same for display on Google Search Engine or other online properties using the Google AdWords Program. No payment is made for the same. Thereafter, the proposed advertisement is stored on the servers of Google Ireland Ltd (GIL) located outside India for undergoing a review process. 15. The review process is undertaken by GIL for advertisements uploaded by Advertisers from all around the world including India. Approximately 94% of global advertisements are reviewed by GIL through its automated system located outside India. Remaining global advertisements, which are not successfully reviewed by the automated system, are subjected to a manual review. For carrying out manual review, the balance 6% (approx.) global advertisements are forwarded to one of service centres of GIL's group entities, located in USA, Dublin, China, Korea, Japan, and India. An advertisement in English by an Indian Advertiser may go for manual review to any of these service centres. These service centres carry out the activity of manual review on a cost-plus basis. The assessee also carries out this activity under the ITES segment as per the services agreement dated 1.4.2004 entered into with GIL. The relevant terms and conditions of this agreement are as under: `THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT (''Agreement'') is entered into as of 1st April, 2004 (the "Effective Date''), by and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 25 of 126 between Google Ireland Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of Ireland ("Ireland'') and having its office at Seagrave House, 19120 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 02, Ireland, and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Prestige Sigma, 1st Floor, NO.3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India ('Go ogle India') and having a branch office at RMZ Future, Block A, 4'" Floor Plot No. 14, Road No.2, Hitec City Layout, Madhapur village, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 500081, Andhra Pradesh. A. WHEREAS, Google Ireland is in the business of developing, licensing, selling, marketing and supporting certain Internet search, advertising system and information organization and management technology products and services to provide information, advertising, search and related services via the Internet, corporate intranets and private networks (collectively, 'Products ''); and . WHEREAS, Google Ireland desires to avail services, relating to, information technology. Information technology enabled services and software development related services from Google India as per the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and C WHEREAS, Google India has expertise in rendering the above services and is willing to render such services for Google Ireland as an independent contractor on the terms and conditions of this Agreement: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS 1. 1 'Affiliate' shall mean any Person, whether de Jure or de facto, that directly or indirectly participates in the capital. control or management of either party or is under common ownership with a party to this Agreement or other entity actually controlled by, controlling. or under common control with a party to this Agreement. 1.2 "Confidential Information' shall mean all data and information of a confidential nature, Including know-how and trade secrets, relating to the business, the affairs, the products. the development or other projects or services of Google Ireland or its-suppliers or its affiliate. including but not limited to Intellectual Property. Confidential Information may be communicated orally, in writing. or in any other recorded, electronic or tangible form. Data and information shall be considered to be Confidential Information if (i) ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 26 of 126 Google Ireland has marked them as such; (ii) Google Ireland, orally or in writing, has advised Google India of their confidential nature; or (iii) due to their character or nature, a reasonable person in a like position and under like circumstances would treat them as secret and confidential. Confidential Information does not include information: (i) that is in the public domain through no fault of the receiving party, (ii) that was previously known by receiving party, as established by written records of the receiving party prior to receipt of such information from the providing party or (iii) that was lawfully obtained by the receiving party from a third party without any obligations of confidentiality to Google Ireland. 1.3 "Derivative works Work" shall mean (i) for copyrightable or copyrighted material, any modification. derivative works work (as defined in 17 USC. §101), translation, abridgment, revision or other form in which such material may be recast, transformed or adapted, (ii) for patentable or patented material, any improvement thereon. and (iii) for material protected by trade secret, any new material derived from such existing trade secret material, including new material which may be protected to copyright, patent and/or trade secret. 1.4 "Documentation" shall mean any and all information, written or otherwise, provided by Goode Ireland to Google India describing the Intellectual Property or the Products and any updated, improved or modified version(s) of such materials including information contained in published written materials, on magnetic media or communicated by electronic means. 1.5 "intellectual Property' shall mean all intellectual, proprietary, and/or intangible property rights constituting, embodied in. pertaining to, used in or with respect to the business of Google Ireland, the Products, or the provision of related services and all tangible embodiments hereof, wherever located, including but not limited to the following: (i) all trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos or trade dress, including all registrations and applications therefor; (ii) all copyrights. Moral Rights (as defined below), and other rights in works of authorship including all registrations and applications therefor; (iii) all patents and patent applications. patentable Ideas, Inventions, innovations and improvements; (iv) all know- how and trade secrets; v) all design and code documentation, methodologies, processes, design information, design ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 27 of 126 flows, encoding techniques, applications, product information. Formulae, engineering specifications, technical data, testing procedures, drawings and techniques and other proprietary information and materials of any kind; (vi) all software programs in both source code and object code format. including all testing software and software tools: (vii) all documentation, records, databases, drafts, designs, codes, drawings and algorithms: and (viii) all confidential and proprietary information related to any of (i) through (vii) above **** **** ****** 1.10 "Software Embodiments" shall mean all designs, discoveries, inventions. Products. procedures, improvements, developments, drawings, notes, Documentation. information. materials, Intellectual Property and Derivative works Works made, conceived or developed by Google India alone or with others which result from or relate to the Services 1.11 "Software Technology" shall mean all Intellectual Property, Confidential Information, Documentation, Derivative works Works and other technical data used by Google Ireland that are required, used or appropriate for the design and development of Products. including the reproduction, use, testing, operation, maintenance and service of such Products. **** **** ***** 2. SERVICES 2.1 Request Google India hereby agrees to perform certain information technology, information technology enabled services and software development services, as requested by Google Ireland from time to time, with respect to Products, utilizing Google Ireland Software Technology and other appropriate technology from Google Ireland or third parties which may be properly used for these purposes. Google Ireland will specify the information technology, information technology enabled services and software development services to be performed, the Products to be worked on or used, the time line for completion and the specific results to be achieved (the Services"). 2.2 Performance. Upon agreement between Google Ireland and Google India as to the Services and completion date for a particular Services project, Google India will perform the Services. Google India agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform the Services in a timely fashion and as described to it by Google Ireland. Google ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 126 India may not subcontract work under this Agreement unless specifically and to the extent set forth in the Services. Google India shall, at all times, be responsible for work done by its subcontractors within the scope of this Agreement as it is for work done by its own employees. At the option of Google Ireland, Google India shall make Goggle Ireland a party to the agreements that Google India may execute with its subcontractors and Google Ireland shall have the right to pre-approve the terms and conditions of such agreements **** **** ****** 5. OWNERSHIP 5.1 Intellectual Property. Google India acknowledges the exclusive right. title and interest of Google Ireland and its licensors and/or suppliers in and to any and all Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, Software Technology and Documentation, and Google India will not at any time do or cause to be done any act or thing impairing or tending to impair any part of said right, title and interest. Google India acknowledges and agrees that all such Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, Software Technology and Documentation shall remain the exclusive property of Google Ireland and, as applicable, its licensors and/or suppliers. 5. 2 Ownership of Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments. Google India shall keep Google Ireland promptly informed of Google India's development of any Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments and hereby irrevocably agrees that all such Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments shall forever be the sole and exclusive property of Google Ireland throughout the world from the date of its creation. As between Google Ireland and Google India no additional action shall be required to vest all right, title and ownership of such Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments in Google Ireland. Google India shall furnish to Google Ireland all such Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments developed by Google India as soon as they become available. From time to-time, promptly upon receipt of Google Ireland's request, Google India shall provide Google Ireland with assignments, in substantially the form of Exhibit B hereto to facilitate Google Ireland's perfection of its rights in the Derivative works Works and the Software Embodiments in any jurisdiction in the world. Google India shall also promptly make available to Google Ireland all Residuals. If Google India has any rights to Derivative works Works or Software Embodiments that ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 29 of 126 cannot be assigned to Google Ireland under law. Google India hereby waives the enforcement of such rights; and if Google India has any rights which cannot be assigned or waived under law, Google India hereby grants to Google Ireland an exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, transferable, folly paid licence, with rights to sub license and assign, to all such rights. Google India shall enter into agreements with its Representatives sufficient to permit Google India to make the foregoing grant of rights. ****** ****** ***** 6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 6.1 Access and Use of Confidential Information. During the course of performance of this Agreement, Google Ireland will disclose certain Confidential Information to Google India solely to permit Google India to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Google India agrees that such Confidential Information shall be kept secret by Google India during the term of this agreement and after the expiration hereof Google India shall refrain from using or exploiting any and all Confidential Information for any purposes or activities other than those contemplated in this Agreement. 6.2 Agreement Not to Disclose Confidential Information. Google India shall not disclose or facilitate disclosure of such Confidential Information to any Person without the prior consent of Google Ireland, except to its Representatives, and then only to the extent necessary for the performance of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. Google India shall cause each of its Representatives with access to the Confidential Information to enter into a nondisclosure agreement in a form approved by Google Ireland. Google India shall use the highest standard of care currently employed by any developer or distributor of high technology products in order to avoid disclosure or misappropriation of such Confidential Information. 6.3 Ownership and Return of Confidential Information. All files, lists, records. documents, drawings, specifications, equipment and computer programs which incorporate or refer to all or a portion of the Confidential Information shall remain the sole property of Go ogle Ireland or its licensors ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 30 of 126 and suppliers. Such materials shall be promptly returned: (i) upon Google Ireland's reasonable request, or (ii) in accordance with Section 12 upon termination of this Agreement, whichever is earlier. **** ********* ****** 12.5 Rights and Duties of Termination. (a) Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement: (i) Google India shall have the right to retain any sums already paid by Google Ireland under this Agreement and Google Ireland shall pay all sums accrued, but not yet paid, that are due under this Agreement as of the date of such termination; (ii) Google India shall discontinue all use of the Confidential Information, Documentation, Intellectual Property and other Software Technology and shall have no further right with respect thereto. (iii) Google India shall (except as specified in subsection (b) below) immediately return to Google Ireland or (at Google Ireland's request) destroy, all copies of the Confidential Information, Documentation and other Software Embodiments, in its possession or control. Google India hereby expressly waives and agrees not to assert any right of detention whatsoever with respect to the foregoing.' 16. Prior to December 2005, an Indian Advertiser could get into a contract with GIL only, for purchasing online advertisement space. However, to accommodate Indian Advertiser(s) desirous to pay in Indian Rupees instead of foreign currency, GIL entered into the Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement dated 12.12.2005 with the-assessee, whereunder the assessee was appointed as a non- exclusive distributor of online advertisement space in India In terms thereof, the assessee set up its "Distribution Segment" for carrying out purchase and re- sale of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers. However, Indian Advertisers who were willing to pay in foreign currency, continued to transact directly with GIL. The Google AdWords Program and its features remains the same whether the Advertiser in India purchases online advertisement space from GIL or its authorised distributor i.e., the assessee. The only difference is where Indian Advertiser purchases from the assessee, it pays in INR whereas where Indian advertiser purchases from GIL, it pays in foreign currency. 17. In a case where the assessee is involved in purchase and re-sale of online advertisement space to Advertiser and if such Advertiser finds it difficult to use Google ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 31 of 126 AdWords Program, he can get guidance and assistance from the employees of the assessee working under the Distribution Segment. However, substantial portion of Indian Advertisers in India prepare their draft advertisements themselves, with the aid of the Google AdWords Program itself. All this is completely free and is open to any member of the public. No payment is made for any use of the Google AdWords Program. In fact, even after using the Google AdWords Program and formulating / displaying an online advertisement, no payment is made by the Advertiser, unless the Ad is clicked by an end-user. Relevant terms and conditions of the Distribution Agreement are as under:- 'Amended and Restated Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement. This Amended and Restated Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement ("Agreement'') is entered into as of December 12, 2005 (the "Effective Date'') by and between Google Ireland Limited, with offices at 1st & 2nd Floors Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4 Ireland ("Google''),and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 1st Floor, Prestige Sigma, No. 3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001 ("Distributor''). WHEREAS 1. Google wishes to enter into the Distribution Agreement for its AdWords Program with Distributor; 2. Whereas Google Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Distributor entered into a Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement, dated as of December 12, 2005.(the "Prior Agreement"), and Google Inc. assigned its rights and obligations under the Prior Agreement to Google; and 3. Google and Distributor desire to terminate the Prior Agreement and further desire that this Agreement supersede and replace the Prior Agreement in its entirety; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants, agreements, representations and warranties hereinafter set forth, Google and Distributor hereby agree as follows 1. Definitions. The following capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below. 1.1 ''Advertiser'' means an individual or business resident or having its principal place of business located within the Territory (as defined herein), where principal place of ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 32 of 126 business is determined by the place of an entity's registration. 1.2 ''AdWords Program" means the advertising program currently offered by Google under the name ''AdWords.'' 1.3 "Brand Features" means the trade names. trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features of each party, respectively, as secured by such party from time to time. 1.4 "Designated Contact" means those contacts designated by each party as the point of contact or contacts for a particular function area related to this Agreement. 1.5 "Google Brand Features" means the Google trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features, with some but not all examples at "http://www.google.comipermissionsltrademarks.html" (or such other URL that Google may provide from time to time), and such other trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, or other distinctive brand features that Google may provide to Distributor for use solely under this Agreement. 1.6 "Intellectual Property Rights" shall mean any and all rights existing from time to time under patent law, copyright law, semiconductor chip protection law, moral rights law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair competition law, publicity rights law, privacy rights law, and any and all other proprietary rights, as well as, any and all applications, renewals, extensions, restorations and re-instatements thereof now or hereafter in force and effect worldwide. 1.7 "Keywords" means words chosen by an advertiser through the AdWords Program for a given set of one or more advertisements that are used to target those advertisements to potential customers. 1.10 "User Data" means all data and information provided by users via the AdWords Program, including all registration data, names, email addresses, other addresses, contact information, and other identifying information. 2. Appointment of Territory and Distributor Obligations. 2.1 Appointment of Territory. Google appoints Distributor as a non-exclusive authorized Distributor of Go ogle AdWords Program to Advertisers, all under and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Distributor shall conduct its business for its own account, in its own name, aid not as an agent, ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 33 of 126 employee, partner, or franchisee of Google. Distributor may not solicit business from and shall not distribute AdWords Program to (even if unsolicited), any entity that does not have a principal place of business within the Territory. For the avoidance of doubt, an entity's principal place of business will be determined by the place of such entity's registration. All inquiries by any such entity for sale of advertising space shall be referred to the designated Google contact within three (3) business days of receipt by Distributor of such inquiry. 2.2 Distribution & Marketing of AdWords Program. Distributor agrees to market and distribute AdWords Program to Advertisers in the designated Territory. within the broad guidelines provided by Google, with its reasonable commercial expertise and own sales force and customer service infrastructure. Distributor shall not subcontract any of its functions or obligations under this Agreement to any third parties. Distributor shall perform its obligations hereunder in a professional and workmanlike manner consistent with reasonably applicable industry standards and in accordance with this Agreement. Distributor will distribute AdWords Program in accordance with the training provided by Google. Failure to do so would constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be grounds for termination under section 9.3. 2.3 AdWords Program Sign Up Process. Distributor shall be responsible for uploading all Advertiser information that is required by Google for participation in the AdWords Program. 2.4 Licences; Approvals. Distributor shall be responsible for obtaining all licences and permits and for satisfying all formalities as may be required to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations in accordance with then- prevailing laws and regulations, including without limitation those necessary to enable Distributor to make payments to Google in US dollars. Distributor will promptly secure all governmental approvals as may be required in the Territory or performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 2.5 Compliance with United States and Other Applicable Law; Conduct of Business. Distributor will comply with all United States and local laws and regulations applicable to the distributor of the goods and services. including but not limited to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and US regulations of international boycotts. Distributor shall (a) ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 34 of 126 conduct business in a manner that reflects favorably at all times on the AdWords Program and on Google's goodwill and reputation, and (b) agrees to adhere to the minimum levels of service as specified in Exhibit C. Breach of this Section 2. 5 will constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 2. 6 After-Sales Support. Distributor will provide after- sales services to Advertisers in accordance with the broad instructions, training and standards of Google. 3. Google Obligations. 3.1 Advertising Space. Google agrees to provide advertising space through the AdWords Program for distribution by Distributor to Advertisers as set forth herein. 3.2 Training. Google agrees to train Distributor. 3.3 Non-Exclusivity. This Agreement shall constitute a non- exclusive relationship between Google and Distributor. ***** ***** ****** 5. Reporting Requirements. 5.1 Information Provided by Google. Google will make available to Distributor online information about Advertiser activity, on an aggregate and individual basis. which information shall contain include (i) the total number of Keywords purchased by Advertisers, (ii) the number of impressions of Advertisers' advertisement delivered across the Google network, (iii) the number of clicks delivered across the Google network for Advertisers' advertisement an (iv) the cost of clicks delivered across the Google network for Advertisers ' advertisement. Distributor must set up AdWords Program advertising accounts in order to receive such online information. Google reserves the right, but has no obligation, to send reports about an Advertiser's activity directly to such Advertiser. If an Advertiser makes a request to Distributor to receive a user name and password to access such Advertisers individual AdWords Program account activity, Distributor' will grant such request after approval from Google. ***** ***** ****** 6. Brand features. Each party shall own all right, title and interest, including without limitation all Intellectual Property Rights, relating to its Brand Features. Google grants to Distributor nonexclusive and non sub-licensable licence during the Term to display Google Brand Features solely for the purpose of Distributor's marketing and distribution of AdWords Program under the terms and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 126 subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Distributor will submit all materials of any kind containing the Brand Features) to Google for written approval prior to release to the public. Furthermore, Distributor agrees to adhere to Google's then- current Brand Features use guidelines, and any content referenced or included therein, which may be found at the following URL: http://www.google.comlpermissionslguidelines.html (or such other URL that Google may provide from time to time) and to such other guidelines or restrictions provided by Google in writing to Distributor in connection herewith. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Distributor shall not acquire any right, title or interest in or to the Google Brand Features. All use by Google of Distributor Brand features (including any goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of Distributor and all use by Distributor of Go ogle Brand Features (including any goodwill associated therewith) shall inure to the benefit of Google. No party shall challenge or assist others to challenge the Brand Features of the other party (except to protect such party's rights with respect to its own Brand Features) or the registration thereof by the other party, nor shall either party attempt to register any Brand Features or domain names that are confusingly similar to those of the other party. 7. Confidentiality; Limitation on Public Announcements. Disclosure of confidential and/or proprietary information disclosed hereunder, including the User Data (including any aggregated User Data), the existence and content of this Agreement, and any information provided pursuant to this Agreement, shall be governed by the Google Standard Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (introductory paragraph and Sections 1 through 12, inclusive), executed by the parties prior to or concurrently with this Agreement (the "NDA ''), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and which is incorporated by reference herein. Each party acknowledges and agrees that it will obtain the other party's prior written approval, which shall include approval of any proposed text, before making any public announcements or communication, including, but not limited to, any press releases, online publishing or direct mailings concerning or related to the existence or terms of this Agreement. In addition. Distributor agrees to waive all claims against and release Google (and its affiliates, ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 36 of 126 partners and representatives) from any claims or losses in connection with any above publications made by Google. 4. User Data. Google owns all right, title, and interest in and to all information and data, including the User Data collected by Google relating to Advertisers in connection with the provision of the AdWords Program. Distributor shall maintain all User Data in accordance with local law and regulation applicable to such data. and shall implement policies and procedures with respect to the User Data that are at least as protective of the rights of the Advertisers as is provided in the Google Privacy Policy set forth at http://wwvv.qoogle.comlprivacy.html and all relevant policies implied therein ****** ****** ****** 9.4 Effect of Termination. Upon any termination or expiration of this Agreement, (i) all rights and licences granted by one party to the other. including but not limited to rights to use the other party's Brand Features shall cease immediately, (ii) each party shall promptly return to the other party, or destroy and certify the destruction of all Confidential Information as defined in the NDA and Section 7 of this Agreement) of the other party, and (iii) except for a termination pursuant to Section 9.2 or Section 9.3 above. Google will continue to serve advertisements as provided in this Agreement up to the earlier date to occur of (x) the date that the services provided by Google exhaust any amounts prepaid by Distributor, or (y) the date that is thirty (30) days after expiration or termination of the Agreement. Termination or expiration of this Agreement. in part or in whole. shall not limit either party from pursuing other remedies available to it, nor shall Distributor be relieved of its obligation to pay all charges that have accrued or are otherwise owed under this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement does not prevent Distributor from participating in the AdWords Program pursuant to the general terms and conditions made publicly available by Google from time to time in its sole discretion. ***** ***** ***** EXHIBIT C Service Level Agreement Distributor shall be solely responsible for providing all customer services to Advertisers. according to the procedures, and in compliance with standards, provided by Google. All Advertisers shall be instructed by Distributor to contact Distributor directly for support and not to communicate directly with Google. Distributor agrees that it shall provide at least the following minimum levels of service: Business hours phone ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 37 of 126 support to all Advertisers. E-mail queries from Advertisers shall be responded to within one (1) business day with immediate resolution of any issues when possible. Issues that cannot immediately be resolved by Distributor based on training and procedures provided under the Agreement must be communicated promptly to Google by Distributor and Google will assist Distributor in determining the best solution. Google agrees that it shall provide at least the following minimum levels of service to Distributor: Customer Queries (as defined below), up to the E-Mail Escalation Limit (as defined below), shall be responded to within one (1) business day "Customer Queries" shall mean e-mails sent from Distributor to Google related to Advertiser issues, but excluding general communications between Distributor and Google (e.g. billing questions, training information) and technical issues that only Google can solve. "E-Mail Escalation Limit" shall equal five (5) e-mails per month for everyone hundred (100) Advertisers serviced by Distributor, provided, however that the E-Mail Escalation Limit shall only apply beginning thirty (30) days after the completion of tile training. Timing for responses to Customer Queries from Distributor beyond the E- Mail Escalation Limit shall be at Google's sole discretion. Distributor agrees that Google will have the right, to review samples of communications sent to Advertisers to assess the quality of responses and modify communications accordingly. Google shall also have the right to send questionnaires to Distributor's customers to ensure that Distributor is providing an adequate level of service. Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement This Mutual Non- Disclosure Agreement (''Agreement'') is made and entered into between Google Ireland Limited, for itself and its subsidiaries and affiliates ("Google''), and "Participant ' identified below, individually referred to as a ''Party'' and collectively referred to as the "Parties". The Parties wish to exchange Confidential Information (as defined below in Section 2) for the following purpose(s): a) to evaluate whether to enter into a contemplated business transaction; and b) if the Parties enter into an agreement related to such business transaction, to fulfill each Party's confidentiality obligations to the extent the terms set forth below are incorporated therein (the ''Purpose''). The Parties ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 38 of 126 have entered into this Agreement to protect the confidentiality of information in accordance with the following terms: 1. The Effective Date of this Agreement is December 12, 2005. 2. In connection with the Purpose, a Party may disclose certain information it considers confidential and/or proprietary ("Confidential Information '') to the other Party including, but not limited to, tangible, intangible, visual, electronic, present, or future information such as: (a) trade secrets; (b) financial information, including pricing; (c) technical information, including research, development, procedures, algorithms, data, designs. and know- how; (d) business information, including operations, planning, marketing interests, and products; (e) the terms of any agreement entered into between the Parties and the discussions, negotiations and proposals related thereto; and (f) information acquired during any facilities tours. 3. The Party receiving Confidential Information (a "Recipient'') will only have a duty to protect Confidential Information disclosed to it by the other Party ("Discloser''): (a) if it is clearly and conspicuously marked as "confidential" or with a similar designation; (b) if it is identified by the Discloser as confidential and/or proprietary before, during. or promptly after presentation or communication; or (c) if it is disclosed in a manner in which the Discloser reasonably communicated, or the Recipient should reasonably have understood under the circumstances including without limitation those described in Section 2 above, that the disclosure should be treated as confidential whether or not the specific designation "confidential" or any similar designation is used. 4. A Recipient will use the Confidential Information only for the Purpose described above. A Recipient will use the same degree of care. but no less than a reasonable degree of care, as the Recipient uses with respect to its own information of a similar nature to protect the Confidential Information and to prevent: (a) any use of Confidential Information in violation of this agreement; and/or (b) communication of Confidential Information to any unauthorized third parties. Confidential Information may only be disseminated to employees, directors, agents or third party contractors of Recipient with a need to know and who have first signed an agreement with either of the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 39 of 126 Parties containing confidentiality provisions substantially similar to those set forth herein. ***** ***** ***** 6. This Agreement imposes no obligation upon a Recipient with respect to Confidential Information that: (a) was known to the Recipient before receipt from the Discloser; (b) is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the Recipient; (c) is rightfully received by the Recipient from a third party without a duty of confidentiality; (d) is independently developed by the Recipient without a breach of this Agreement; (e) is disclosed by the Recipient with the Discloser's prior written approval; or (f) is required to be disclosed by operation of law, court order or other governmental demand ("Process''); provided that (i) the Recipient shall immediately notify the Discloser of such Process; and (ii) the Recipient shall not produce or disclose Confidential Information in response to the Process unless the Discloser has: (a) requested protection from the legal or governmental authority requiring the Process and such request has been denied, (b) consented in writing to the production or disclosure of the Confidential Information in response to the Process, or (c) taken no action to protect its interest in the Confidential Information within 14 business days after receipt of notice from the Recipient of its obligation to produce or disclose confidential information in response to the Process ***** ***** ******* 11. No Party acquires any intellectual property rights under II Agreement (including, but not limited to, patent, copyright, and trademark rights) except the limited rights necessary to carry out the Purpose as forth in this Agreement. 0. Each Party acknowledges that damages for improper disclosure Confidential Information may be irreparable; therefore, the injured Party is entitled to seek equitable relief, including injunction and preliminary injunction, in addition to all other remedies available to it. 18. The standard agreement entered into between the assessee and the advertisers is as under:- Google Advertising Agreement Customer Invoicing address Advertising third party Name and address Advertiser ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 40 of 126 Advertising third party Customer will promptly notify Google of any change in address and contact name information for billing purpose. Agreement name. Agreement type Agreement Id Purchase order # Target start date End date Agreement budget Service tax Billing Method Payment Terms (payment due within the following number of days from invoice date) When applicable, Customer's purchase order number references above is required and must be provided by customer for Google Invoicing This Adwords Agreement ('SA') shall be governed by terms and conditions ('Terms and Conditions) available at the following URL: http.l/ www.google.co. inladsladwordsterms. html All terms contained in the Terms and Conditions are made a part of this SA through incorporation by reference. The signatory of this Service Agreement represents that she has read and agrees to such Terms and Conditions and the terms of SA. There shall be no force or effect to any different or additional terms of any related SA, purchase order or sales document. Google may decide at any lime, in its sole discretion, to change, suspend or discontinue all or any aspect of its advertising programs, including their availability, and shall notify Customer of material changes and discontinuauons. Google shall have no liability for such decision. By signing below, Customer represents and warrants that all client information, including but not limited to credit card information and invoicing information, provided herein is complete and accurate and that no additional information is necessary for payment of Google invoices. Customer's campaign(s) may go live upon posting. at which time Google shall send Customer an email notifying customer it has 72 hours to modify Customers campaign keywords and settings as posted. During those 72 hours, Google is only liable to Customer for keywords or settings discrepancies if Customer can certify to Google by its ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 41 of 126 contemporaneous documental (evidence that Google posted keywords or settings other than those requested by Customer. The account (as modified by Customer, or if unmodified, as initially posted) will be deemed approved by Customer 72 hours after it initially posts. Terms of Payment. If Google, at any time, deems itself insecure with respect to Customer's ability to meet its financial obligations under this SA, Google shall have the right to require pre-payment of the total amount due for the SA in advance of the Target Start Date or as otherwise requested by Google. Customer must remit all payments under this SA to Google by the due date indicated on the Invoice(s). In the event of nonpayment, Google reserves the right to immediately terminate this SA upon written notice to Customer and immediately suspend the entire Customer account. Late payments are subject to interest payments as set forth in the Terms and Conditions. Methods of Billing: Monthly Invoicing: Customer will be billed at the end of the month, based on the actual number of clicks or other billing methods Customer may choose to participate in as described in the FAQ (e.g. cost per impression programs). Customer's credit must first be approved by Google in order for this billing method to apply. Prepayment: Customer will pay the total agreement budget prior to any campaign launch. Acceptance and terms of prepayment are at Google's sole discretion. Prepayment does not obligate Google to deliver any Ad Words ads notwithstanding acceptance of prepayment by Google. Unused portions of prepayments will be returned to Customer after the end date to the extent that there are no amounts still due to Google. Right To Reject Advertisement: All advertisements submitted by Customer are subject to Google's approval. Google reserves the right to review, reject or remove any SA, advertisement, or URL link, except that Google will not cancel placement of an SA, advertisement, or URL link due to inventory demand for other advertisers. Customer pre- authorises Google to modify or rearrange the text elements in advertising creative submitted by Customer. Please carefully read these Google Advertising Agreement terms and conditions ("Agreement') before selecting '1 Accept ' and submitting your selection. By selecting 'I Accept', you agree to be legally bound by the terms of this agreement. If you do not agree to the terms of this ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 42 of 126 agreement please select "1 Decline" and submit your selection. Customer signature Name Title Company Google Signature Name Title Company." 19. The Standard Google India Private Limited Advertising Program Terms are as under: "Google India Private Limited Advertising Program Terms These Google India Private Limited Advertising Program Terms ("Terms") are entered into by, as applicable, the customer signing these Terms or any document that references these Terms or that accepts these Terms electronically ("Customer") and Google India Private Limited ("Google'~. These Terms govern Google's advertising program(s) ("Program") as further described in the applicable Program's frequently asked questions at www.google.com (the "FAQs') and, as applicable, Customer's participation in any such Program (s), Customer's online management of any advertising campaigns ("Online Management") and/or any insertion orders ("IO" executed by and between the parties (together the "Agreement"). Google and Customer hereby agree and acknowledge: 1. Policies. Program use is subject to all applicable Google and Partner ad specification requirements and policies, including without limitation the Editorial Guidelines (adwords google.com/select/guidelines.html) Google Privacy Policy (www.google.com/privacy.html) and Trademark Guidelines (www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html), (collectively, "Policies"). Policies may be modified any time. Customer shall direct only to Google communications regarding Customer ads on Partner Properties. Some Program features are identified as "Beta," "Ad Experiment," or otherwise unsupported ("Beta Features"). To the fullest extent permitted by law, Beta Features are provided "as is" and at Customer's option and risk. Customer shall not disclose to any third party any information from Beta Features, existence of non-public Beta Features or access to Beta Features. Google may, at its sole discretion and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 43 of 126 without any prior consent from the Customer, modify ads to comply with any Policies. 2. The Program: Customer is solely responsible for all: (a) ad targeting options and keywords (collectively "Targets") and all ad content, ad information, and ad URLs ("Creative"), whether generated by or for Customer; and (b) web sites. services and landing pages which Creative links or directs viewers to, and advertised services and products (collectively "Services"). Customer shall protect any Customer passwords and takes full responsibility for Customer's own, and third party, use of any Customer accounts. Ads may be placed on (y) any content or property provided by Google ("Google Property"), and unless opted-out by Customer (z) any other content or property provided by a third party ( "Partner") upon which Google places ads ("Partner Property"). With respect to Adwords online auction-based advertising, Google may send Customer an email notifying Customer it has 72 hours ("Modification Period") to modify keywords and settings as posted. The account (as modified by Customer otherwise as initially posted) is deemed approved by Customer after the Modification Period, and Google is only liable to Customer for discrepancies if Customer can certify by contemporaneous documentary evidence that Google posted ads not approved by Customer. With respect to all other advertising, Customer must provide Google with all relevant Creative by the due date set forth in that advertising Program's applicable FAQ or as otherwise communicated by Google. Customer grants Google permission to utilize an automated software program to retrieve and analyze websites associated with the Services for ad quality and serving purposes, unless Customer specifically opts out of the evaluation in a manner specified by Google. Google or Partners may reject or remove any ad or Target any time for any or no reason. Google may modify the Program or these Terms at any time without liability and your use of the Program after notice that Terms have changed indicates acceptance of the Terms. 3. Cancellation. Customer may independently cancel advertising itself online through Customer's account. if any, or, if such online cancellation functionality is not available, with prior written notice to Google, including electronic mail. AdWords online auction-based advertising cancelled online will cease serving upon cancellation. All ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 44 of 126 other advertising may be subject to Google's ability to re- schedule reserved inventory or cancel advertisements already in production. Cancelled advertisements may be published despite cancellation if cancellation of those ads occurs after any applicable commitment date as set forth in advance by the Partner or Google in which case Customer must pay for those ads. Google may cancel immediately any 10, any of its advertising Programs, or these Terms at any time with notice, in which case Customer will be responsible for any ads already run. Google may modify any of its advertising Programs at any time without liability. Sections I, 2, 3,5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 4. Prohibited Uses; License Grant; Representations and Warranties. Customer shall not, and shall not authorize any party to: (a) generate automated, fraudulent or otherwise invalid impressions, inquiries, conversions, clicks or other actions; (b) use any automated means or form of scraping or data extraction to access, query or otherwise collect Google advertising related information from any Adwords website or property except as expressly permitted by Google; or (c) advertise anything illegal or engage in any illegal or fraudulent business practice. Customer represents and warrants that it holds and hereby grants Google and Partners all rights (including without limitation any copyright, trademark, patent. publicity or other rights) in Creative. Services and Targets needed for Google and Partner to operate Google's advertising programs for Customer (including without limitation any rights needed to host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, modify, distribute, perform. display, reformat. excerpt, analyze, and create algorithms from and derivative works of Creative or Targets) in connection with this Agreement ("Use"). Customer represents and warrants that LV) all Customer information is complete, correct and current; and (z) any Use hereunder and Customer's Creative, Targets, and Customer's Services will not violate or encourage violation of any applicable laws, regulations, code of conduct, or third party rights (including, without limitation, intellectual property rights). Violation of the foregoing may result in immediate termination of this Agreement or customer's account without notice and may subject Customer to legal penalties and consequences. 3. Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law. GOOGLE DISCLAIMS ALL ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 126 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR NONINFRINGEMENT, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Google disclaims all guarantees regarding positioning or the levels or timing of (i) costs per click, (ii) click through rates, (iii) availability and delivery of any impressions, Creative, or Targets on any Partner Property, Google Property, or section thereof, (iv) clicks (v) conversions or other results for any ads or Targets (vi) the accuracy of Partner data (e.g. reach, size of audience, demographics or other purported characteristics of audience), and (vii) the adjacency or placement of advertisements within a Program. EXCEPT FOR indemnification AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THIRD PARTIES HEREUNDER AND CUSTOMER'S BREACHES OF SECTION 1, to the fullest extent permitted by law: (a) NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, INTEREST, GOODWILL, LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA OR FOR ANY LOSS OR INTERRUPTION TO CUSTOMER'S BUSINESS) WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY; AND (b) EACH PARTY'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO THE OTHER IS LIMITED TO AMOUNTS PAID OR PAYABLE TO GOOGLE BY CUSTOMER FOR THE AD GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM. Except for payment obligations, neither party is liable for failure or delay resulting from a condition beyond the reasonable control of the party, including but not limited to acts of God, government, terrorism, natural disaster, labor conditions and power failures. 6. Agency. Customer represents and warrants that (a) it is authorized to act on behalf of and has bound to this Agreement any third party for which Customer advertises (a "Principal'') (b) as between Principals and Customer, the Principal owns any rights to Program information in connection with those advertisements, and (c) Customer shall not disclose Principal's Program information to any other party without Principal's consent. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 46 of 126 7. Payment Customer shall be responsible for all charges up to the amount of each 10, or as set in an online account, and shall pay all charges in Indian Rupees or in such other currency as agreed to in writing by the parties. Unless agreed to by the parties in writing, Customer shall pay all charges in accordance with the applicable 10 or Program FAQ. Late payments bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month (or the highest rate permitted by law, if less). Charges are exclusive of taxes, cesses or other applicable levies. Customer is responsible for paying (y) all applicable taxes, cesses and levies, government charges, and (z) reasonable expenses and attorneys fees Google incurs collecting late amounts. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Customer waives all claims relating to charges unless claimed within 60 days after the charge (this does not affect Customer's credit card issuer rights). Charges are solely based on Google's measurements for the applicable Program, unless otherwise agreed in writing. To the fullest extent permitted by law, refunds (if any) are at the discretion of Google and only in the form of advertising credit for only Google Properties. Nothing in these Terms or and 10 may obligate Google to extend credit to any party. Customer acknowledges and agrees that any credit card and related billing and payment information that Customer provides to Google may be shared by Google with companies who work on Google's behalf, such as payment processors and/or credit agencies, solely for the purposes of checking credit, effecting payment to Google and servicing Customer's account. Google may also provide information in response to valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants and court orders, or to establish or exercise its legal rights or defend against legal claims. Google shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of such information by such third parties. 8. Indemnification. Customer shall indemnify without limit and defend Google, its Partners, agents, affiliates, and licensors from any third party claim or liability (collectively, "Liabilities"), arising out of Use, Customer's Program use, Targets, Creative and Services and breach of the Agreement. Partners shall be deemed third party beneficiaries of the above Partner indemnity. Without limitation to the generality of the foregoing, Customer shall indemnify Google against any Liabilities or losses arising out of any claim based on any act or allegation of ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 47 of 126 infringement of intellectual property, misrepresentation or defamation. 9. Arbitration. The parties agree that they will try in good faith to settle within thirty (30) days any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of relating to or in connection with this Agreement ("Dispute''). If the Dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days after such Dispute arose, such Dispute must be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration, to which the Parties hereto expressly agree and submit. The arbitration will be submitted to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") and conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA in force as of the date of this Agreement ("Rules''). Pre-hearing information exchange shall be limited to the reasonable production of relevant, non-privileged documents and carried out expeditiously. There will be one arbitrator selected by mutual agreement of the Parties. The arbitrator will not act as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono. It is the intent of the parties that, barring extraordinary circumstances, arbitration proceedings will be concluded within 60 days from the date the arbitrator is appointed. The arbitrator may extend this time limit in the interests of justice. Failure to adhere to this time limit shall not constitute a basis for challenging the award. The arbitration will be conducted in English and the place of arbitration will be Bangalore, India. Either party may, without waiving any remedy under this Agreement, apply to the arbitrator and/or any court having jurisdiction any interim, provisional, injunctive or conservatory relief that is necessary to protect the rights or property of that party until the arbitration award is rendered or the Dispute is otherwise resolved. Any decision rendered by the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties, and judgment thereon may be entered by any court of competent jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, any court that has jurisdiction over either of the parties or any of their assets. The parties expressly agree that the arbitrator will be empowered to award and order equitable or injunctive relief with respect to matters brought before him, provided however, that such remedy or relief is consistent with the remedies and limitations set forth in this Agreement. The parties agree that all arbitral proceedings conducted pursuant to this Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law or otherwise provided herein. The parties may, however, disclose such information to an appropriate court, as is necessary to seek enforcement of any award rendered by the arbitrator or to seek any interim, provisional, injunctive or conservatory relief pursuant to the terms hereof 10. Miscellaneous. The Agreement must be construed as if both parties jointly wrote it, governed by Indian law. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces any other applicable agreements, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hereof Any conflicting or additional terms contained in additional documents (e.g. reference to a purchase order number) or oral discussions are void. Each party shall not disclose the terms or conditions of these Terms to any third party, except to its professional advisors under a strict duty of confidentiality or as necessary to comply with a government law, rule or regulation. Customer may grant approvals, permissions, extensions and consents by email, but any modifications by Customer to the Agreement must be made in a writing executed by both parties. Any notices to Google must be sent to Google India Pvt. Ltd., No.3, RMZ Infinity - Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th Floor, Bangalore, 560016, India with a copy to Legal Department, via confirmed facsimile, with a copy sent via first class or air mail or overnight courier, and are deemed given upon receipt. Notice to Customer may be effected by sending email to the email address specified in Customer's account, or by posting a message to Customer's account interface, and is deemed received when sent (for email) or no more than 15 days after having been posted (for messages in Customer's account interface). A waiver of any default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Unenforceable provisions will be modified 10 reflect the parties' intention and only to the extent necessary to make them enforceable, and remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain in full effect. Customer may not assign any of its rights hereunder and any such attempt is void. Google and Customer and Google and Partners are ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 49 of 126 not legal partners or agents, but are independent contractors. In the event that these Terms or an Advertising Program expire or is terminated, Google shall not be obligated to return any materials to Customer. 11. Term: Unless terminated earlier under the terms of this Agreement This Agreement shall have a term of 1 year from the latest of the signature dates below. Customer acknowledges and agrees that if this Agreement expires or is terminated any Customer campaigns in effect as of the date of such expiration or termination or any new campaigns commenced after such expiration or termination shall run thereafter subject to Google's then standard terms and conditions for the Program." 20. Under the Distribution Agreement, the assessee acted as a distributor of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers. The assessee was ensured a specified margin over its cost from GIL. If in case, the revenue recorded by the assessee from the sale of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers was less than its cost (incurred in connection with its distribution function) plus the specified margin, GIL was required to compensate the assessee for the difference. However, where the revenue recorded by the assessee from the onward sale of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers was more than the cost plus the specified margin of the assessee, the assessee was required to make the payment to GIL. 21. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the DT AA between India - Ireland is applicable in respect of the payments made by the assessee to Google Ireland. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd v CIT (supra) at para 108 of its judgment held as under:- "108. Fourthly, the High Court is not correct in referring to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act after considering it in the manner that it has and then applying it to interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 50 of 126 with explanation 4 thereof has not been properly appreciated." 22. Thus, the definition of the term "royalty" in Article 12(3) of the India - Ireland DT AA override the definition of "royalty" as provided in Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi) of the Act by virtue of section 90(2). Therefore, the definition of the term "royalty" under the India - Ireland DTAA being more beneficial to the assessee must only be considered in these appeals. The findings of the AO and CIT(A) as regards the characterisation of the payments to Google Ireland as 'Royalty' under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act is therefore not relevant and consequently correctness of these findings need not be adjudicated in these appeals. Similarly, we do not think it is necessary to decide whether the services agreement and distribution agreement are interlinked or complementary to each other. ITES services are enabling the overall business and not directly related to generating revenue from Adword Program in India. Revenue is generated by end customers clicking on link and not because of ITES services. Even if it is interlinked, the internal tools / intangibles / software of Google Ireland are admittedly not transferred to assessee. The assessee has only right to use these for rendering ITES services. Applying ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra), this cannot result in royalty. We proceed to examine whether the definition of 'Royalty' as per Article 12 of India-Ireland DT AA is satisfied in the present case considering the distribution agreement, services agreement and the facts on record. 23. The definition of 'Royalty' as per Article 12(3)(a) of India - Ireland DTAA is as under:- "3. (a) The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph film or films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process or for the use of or the right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, other than an aircraft or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. " 24. The first limb of the above definition treats consideration for the use of or the right to use any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 51 of 126 cinematograph film or films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting as royalty. The computerised advertising program i.e., "Google AdWords Program" is essentially a computer program i.e., a computer software. As per Explanation 3 to section 9(l)(vi), a computer software means any computer programme recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device and includes any such programme or any customized electronic data. It is not in dispute that the Adwords Program is used by the assessee in the present case be it for the purpose of discharging its functions under the distribution agreement or under the services agreement. However, the question for our consideration is whether the copyright in "Google AdWords Program" is used by the assessee or not? In order to attract definition of 'Royalty', there has to be use or right to use, inter alia, any copyright. The issue as to whether usage of computer software tantamounts to royalty, is now resolved by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra). The Supreme Court grouped the various appeals on the aspect of royalty issue on software payments into four categories as under:- Category 1: Computer software purchased by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign non-resident supplier/manufacturer. Category 2: Purchase of computer software by resident Indian companies that act as distributors/resellers, from foreign non-resident suppliers for the purpose reselling the same to resident Indian users. Category 3: Purchase of software by foreign non-resident distributor from a foreign non-resident supplier for the purpose of reselling the same to Indian distributors or end- users. Category 4: Computer software affixed onto a hardware and sold as an integrated unit/equipment by foreign non- resident suppliers to Indian distributors or end-users. 25. The Supreme Court made a reference to the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and on the interpretation of the same, it accepted the difference between a copyright right and copyrighted article. The important observations of the Supreme Court are summarized as follows:- "71. The transfer of "all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of any copyright", in the context of computer software, is referable to sections ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 52 of 126 14(a), 14(b) and 30 of the Copyright Act. As has been held hereinabove, the expression "in respect of' is equivalent to "in" or "attributable to". Thus, explanation 2(v) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, when it speaks of "all of any rights ... in respect of copyright" is certainly more expansive than the DTAA provision, which speaks of the "use of, or the right to use" any copyright. 72. However, when it comes to the expression "use of, or the right to use", the same position would obtain under explanation 2(v) of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as, there must, under the licence granted or sale made, be a transfer of any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) or 14(b) of the Copyright Act, for explanation 2(v) to apply. To this extent. there will be no difference in the position between the definition of "royalties" in the DTAAs and the definition of "royalty" in Explanation 2(v) of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. 73. Even if we were to consider the ambit of "royalty" only under the Income-tax Act on the footing that none of the DT AAs apply to the facts of these cases, the definition of royalty that is contained in explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act would make it clear that there has to be a transfer of "all or any rights" which includes the grant of a licence in respect of any copyright in a literary work. The expression "including the granting of a licence" in clause (v) of explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, would necessarily mean a licence in which transfer is made of an interest in rights "in respect of' copyright, namely, that there is a parting with an interest in any of the rights mentioned in section 14(b) read with section 14(a) of the Copyright Act. To this extent, there will be no difference between the position under the DTAA and Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. ***** ******** ****** ....... 97. When, under a non-exclusive licence, an end-user gets the right to use computer software in the form of a CD, the end-user only receives a right to use the software and nothing more. The end-user does not get any of the rights that the owner continues to retain under section 14(b) of the Copyright Act read with sub-section (a)(i)-(vii) thereof Thus, the conclusion that when computer software is licensed for use under an EULA, what is also licensed is the right to use the copyright embedded therein, is wholly incorrect. The licence for the use of a product under an EULA cannot be ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 53 of 126 construed as the licence spoken of in section 30 of the Copyright Act, as such EULA only imposes restrictive conditions upon the end- user and does not part with any interest relatable to any rights mentioned in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act. ***** ******** ****** 100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income- tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof and Article 3(2) of the DTAA. Further, the expression "copyright" has to be understood in the context of the statute which deals with it, it being accepted that municipal laws which apply in the Contracting States must be applied unless there is any repugnancy to the terms of the DTAA. For all these reasons, the determination of the AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd (supra) does not state the law correctly and is thus set aside. ***** ******** ****** 108. Fourthly, the High Court is not correct in referring to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act after considering it in the manner that it has and then applying it to interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains. ["India-Ireland DTAA'']. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read with explanation 4 thereof has not been properly appreciated ***** ******** ****** 117. The conclusions that can be derived on a reading of the aforesaid judgments are as follows: (i) Copyright is an exclusive right, which is negative in nature, being a right to restrict others from doing certain acts. (ii) Copyright is an intangible, incorporeal right, in the nature of a privilege, which is quite independent of any material substance. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 126 Ownership of copyright in a work is different from the ownership of the physical material in which the copyrighted work may happen to be embodied An obvious example is the purchaser of a book or a CD/DVD, who becomes the owner of the physical article, but does not become the owner of the copyright inherent in the work, such copyright remaining exclusively with the owner. (i) Parting with copyright entails parting with the right to do any of the acts mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act. The transfer of the material substance does not, of itself, serve to transfer the copyright therein. The transfer of the ownership of the physical substance, in which copyright subsists, gives the purchaser the right to do with it whatever he pleases, except the right to reproduce the same and issue it to the public, unless such copies are already in circulation, and the other acts mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act. (iv) A licence from a copyright owner, conferring no proprietary interest on the licensee, does not entail parting with any copyright, and is different from a licence issued under section 30 of the Copyright Act, which is a licence which grants the licensee an interest in the rights mentioned in section 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act. Where the core of a transaction is to authorize the end-user to have access to and make use of the "licensed" computer software product over which the licensee has no exclusive rights, no copyright is parted with and consequently, no infringement takes place, as is recognized by section 52(l)(aa) of the Copyright Act. It makes no difference whether the end-user is enabled to use computer software that is customised to its specifications or otherwise. (iii) A non-exclusive, non-transferable licence, merely enabling the use of a copyright product, is in the nature of restrictive conditions which are ancillary to such use, and cannot be construed as a licence to enjoy all or any of the enumerated rights mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act. or create any interest in any such rights so as to attract section 30 of the Copyright Act. (v) The right to reproduce and the right to use computer software are distinct and separate rights, as has been recognized in State Bank of India (supra) (see paragraph 21), former amounting to parting with copyright and the latter, in the context of no exclusive EULAs, not being so." 26. Having considered the above principles in the context of copyright royalty, we proceed to examine the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 55 of 126 applicability of the above principles to the facts of the present case particularly with reference to distribution agreement, services agreement and other facts on record. As per para 2.1 of the distribution agreement, assessee is appointed as a non exclusive authorised distributor of Google Adwords program to Advertisers. Para 2.2 of the agreement states that the distributor agrees to market and distribute Adwords program to advertisers within the broad guidelines provided by Google with its reasonable commercial expertise and own sales force and customer service infrastructure. It also provides that the Distributor will distribute the AdWords program in accordance with the training provided by Google. As per para 2.3, distributor shall be responsible for uploading all Advertiser information that is required by Google for participation in the Adwords Program. As per para 2.6, distributor will provide after sales services to Advertisers in accordance with the broad instructions, training and standards of Google. The advertising space is provided by GIL through the Adwords program and GIL also agreed to train the distributor. It is specifically agreed that the agreement shall constitute a non exclusive relationship between Google Ireland and distributor. Google Ireland owns all right, title and interest in and to all information and data including the user data collected by it in connection with the provision of the Adwords Program. 27. As per the service level agreement - Exhibit C to distribution agreement, assessee distributor shall be solely responsible for providing all customer services to Advertisers, according to the procedures, and in compliance with standards, provided by Google. All Advertisers shall be instructed by Distributor to contact Distributor directly for support, and not to communicate directly with Google Ireland. Distributor agrees that it shall provide minimum levels of service like Business hours phone support to all Advertisers, E-mail queries from Advertisers shall be responded to within one (l) business day with immediate resolution of any issues when possible. It was decided that the issues that cannot immediately be resolved by Distributor based on training and procedures provided under the Agreement must be communicated promptly to Google Ireland by Distributor / assessee, and Google Ireland will assist assessee / Distributor in determining the best solution. It was also agreed that the distributor agrees that Google Ireland will ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 56 of 126 have the right, to review samples of communications sent to Advertisers to assess the quality of responses and modify communications accordingly. Google Ireland shall also have the right to send questionnaires to Distributor's customers to ensure that Distributor is providing an adequate level of service. 28. As per the standard Advertising program terms, the advertiser is solely responsible for all ad targeting options, keywords and all ad content. The advertiser represents and warrants that it holds and hereby grants Google and Partners all rights (including without limitation any copyright, trademark, patent, publicity or other rights) in Creative, Services and Targets needed for Google and Partner to operate Google's advertising programs for Customer (including without limitation any rights needed to host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, reformat, excerpt, analyze, and create algorithms from and derivative works of Creative or Targets) in connection with this Agreement ("Use"). The advertiser represents and warrants that (y) all Customer information is complete, correct and current; and (z) any Use hereunder and Customer's Creative, Targets, and Customer's Services will not violate or encourage violation of any applicable laws, regulations, code of conduct, or third party rights (including, without limitation, intellectual property rights). Violation of the foregoing may result in immediate termination of this Agreement or customer's account without notice and may subject Customer to legal penalties and consequences. 29. As per the services agreement, the assessee was providing information and information technology enabled services to Google Ireland. As regards ownership of intellectual property and ownership of derivate works, it was agreed that all intellectual property shall remain the exclusive property of Google Ireland. The confidential information provided by Google Ireland was to be employed by the assessee in performance of its services under the agreement and it shall remain the sole property of the Google Ireland. The statements recorded from the employees also confirms that the confidential information, software technology and the training documents for providing services under the services agreement are provided by Google Ireland to the assessee. 30. On a consideration of all the above agreements and the facts on record, we find that none of the rights as ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 57 of 126 per section 14(a)/(b) and section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 have been transferred by Google Ireland to the assessee in the present case. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. CIT & Anr. (supra), mere use of or right to use a computer program without any transfer of underlying copyright in it as per section 14(a)/(b) or section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 will not be satisfying the definition of Royalty under the Act / DTAA. Similarly, use of confidential information, software technology, training documents and others are all 'literary work' with copyrights in it owned by the foreign entity and there was no transfer or license of copyrights in favour of the assessee company. Hence, the impugned payments cannot be characterised as 'Royalty' under the DTAA. 31. The lower authorities have held that the assessee has been granted the use of or right to use trademarks, other brand features and the process owned by Google Ireland for the purpose of distribution of Adwords program and consequently the sums payable to Google Ireland are royalty. As per Article 12 of India - Ireland DTAA, consideration for the use of or right to use any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process is regarded as royalty. In the present case, as per the distribution agreement, "Google Brand Features" means the Google trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features, with some but not all examples at "http://www.google .com/permissions/trademarks.html" (or such other URL that Google may provide from time to time), and such other trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, or other distinctive brand features that Google may provide to Distributor for use solely under this Agreement. As per para 6 of the distribution agreement, each party shall own all right, title and interest, including without limitation all Intellectual Property Rights, relating to its Brand Features and Google Irland grants to the assessee / distributor nonexclusive and nonsublicensable licence during the Term to display Google Brand Features solely for the purpose of distributor's marketing and distribution of AdWords Program under the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. It is thus evident that the trademark and other brand features are not used independently or de hors the distribution agreement but ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 58 of 126 they are incidental or ancillary for the purpose of carrying out the marketing and distribution of Adword program. The Delhi High Court in DIT v Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267 held that when the use of trade mark, trade name etc are incidental to the main service of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and further when there is no consideration payable for such use of trade mark, trade name etc, the consideration cannot be characterised as royalty. Applying the said principle, in the present case, use of Google Brand Features etc are de hors any consideration payable to Google Ireland and further they are incidental and ancillary for achieving the main purpose of marketing and distributing the Google Adwords Program. Hence, the lower authorities were not right in treating the payments as Royalty. 32. As regards the applicability of 'use of or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment" the CIT(A) held that the assessee cannot be said to have gained right to use any scientific equipment, since, Google Ireland has not parted with the copyright it holds in the Adwords program and hence it cannot be said that any kind of technical knowhow has been transferred to the assessee company. The CIT(A) was not in agreement with the AO on the above issue without prejudice to his view in holding that the remitted amount is royalty on different grounds. The revenue has not challenged the said finding of CIT(A). Hence, the impugned payments cannot be regarded as made for 'use of or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment'. The remaining portion of definition of 'Royalty' under the India - Ireland DT AA is consideration for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The AO has not characterised the impugned payments as a consideration for the above. In any case, CIT(A) has given a finding that it cannot be said that any kind of technical knowhow has been transferred to the assessee company. This has not been challenged by the revenue. 33. Thus on an overall analysis of the entire facts on record, we hold that the impugned payments cannot be regarded as royalty under the India - Ireland DTAA. It is true that the Google Adword program was commercially and profitably exploited in a commercial sense and profitable manner in India to generate revenues from Indian customers or advertisers. This is the business or commercial aspect of the transaction. However, the stand ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 59 of 126 of the lower authorities that the impugned payments are in the nature of Royalty cannot be upheld especially under Article 12 of the India - Ireland DTAA merely because the marketing, distribution and ITES activities are carried out in India and revenues are generated from India or from Indian Advertisers. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, at page 763: "We are unable to agree with the submissions that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perceived by the respondents." 34. Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the taxability with respect to payments made for purchase of online advertisement has been decided by the following Coordinate Bench orders of the I.T.Act:- (i) Yahoo (supra): Department of Tourism of India hired the services of Yahoo India for uploading, displaying, and hosting its banner advertisement on the Yahoo portal, which was operated by Yahoo Hong Kong. For the said purposes Yahoo India engaged Yahoo Hong Kong for uploading and displaying the said banner advertisement. Pursuant to such arrangement, Yahoo India received consideration from Department of Tourism of India and after retaining its margin, the balance was remitted to Yahoo Hong Kong. The payment remitted by Yahoo India to Yahoo Hong Kong was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal. The AO as well as CIT(A) held such payments to be royalty and in that manner, disallowed the expenditure in the hands of Yahoo India under section 40(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, in second appeal, held that banner advertisement hosting services did not involve use or right to use any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment and no such use was granted by Yahoo Hong Kong. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the AO and CIT(A), wherein the subject payments were characterised as royalty. (ii) Pinstorm (supra): Pinstorm was engaged in buying online advertisement space for onward re-sale to an advertiser, much like GIPL in the present case. For such purpose, Pinstorm made payments to GIL, which were disallowed by the AO and CIT(A) under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the premise that the said payments were taxable in India. While the AO held the said payments to ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 60 of 126 be fees for technical services ("FTS"), the CIT(A) held them to be royalty. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra) to delete the disallowance. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the said payments were business profits, which were not taxable in India, since GIL did not have a PE in India. (iii) Right Florists (supra): Right Florist was a florist who used Google Search Engine for online advertising, to generate more business for itself. In this case again, the AO had disallowed the payments made by Right Florist for online advertising under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) reversed the said decision on the ground that none of the recipients of the payments had a PE in India. The Tribunal, in Department's appeal, upheld the order of the CIT(A), while observing that the decisions in Yahoo (supra) and Pinstorm (supra) were authorities in support of the proposition that payment by the Indian arm of a foreign owner of search engine portal, in connection with online advertising, is not in the nature of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. In this decision, the Tribunal also discussed the modalities involved in the online advertising business, in the context of Google Search Engine. (iv) Inception Business (supra): In this case the assessee was engaged in the business of brand management as well as posting advertisements in the social portal on behalf of their clients. The AO held the payments made by it for that purpose to Facebook Ireland Ltd., a non-resident, to be taxable in India. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra), Right Florists (supra), while setting aside the order of the AO/ CIT(A) and holding that the payments for purchase of online advertisement space were not taxable in India. (v) Urban Ladder (supra): The assessee in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO held the said payments to be royalty. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. However, while doing so, the CIT(A) relied upon certain functional aspects of advertisement system qua Patent Number US20040059708A1 as well as US7778872B2. These two patents are held by Google LLC., USA in connection with the Google AdWords Program hereto. The Tribunal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 61 of 126 (supra). The Hon'ble Tribunal also relied on the decisions in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra) and Right Florists (supra). (vi) Myntra Designs (supra): Myntra in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO held the said payments to be royalty and in the alternate, as FTS. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while setting aside the order of the CIT(A). (vii) Play Games (supra): Play games is engaged in the business of providing a platform for online gaming. It had made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO and CIT(A) in this case as well, held that payments to be taxable in India. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that Play Games did not get any right to modify/ deal with the servers, which belonged to Facebook Ireland Ltd., in any manner. It was also observed inter alia that the said servers, which hosted online advertisements, were located outside India and that Facebook Ireland Ltd. did not have a PE in India. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held the payments in question to be neither royalty, nor FTS. (viii) Matrimony.com (supra): Matrimony.com in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO in this case as well, disallowed the said payments under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which action was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while deleting the said disallowance. (ix) ESPN Digital Media (supra): ESPN India in this case, entered into a re-seller agreement with ESPN UK, for the resale of online advertisement space. In terms thereof, ESPN India purchased online advertisement space for re- sale to Indian advertisers. For this purchase, it made payments to ESPN UK, which were characterised as royalty by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal, in second appeal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while observing that ESPN India was merely making payment under the re- seller agreement towards purchase of online advertisement space. It was also observed that a website is not a tangible property and is certainly not a high-tech equipment. It was also observed that the reliance of the AO and CIT(A) on the decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO, (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Madras High Court) was misplaced, ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 62 of 126 since the same had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Engineering Analysis (supra). (x) Interactive Avenues (supra): Interactive Avenues is an internet advertising agency, which places online advertisements on behalf of its clients. The payments in this case were made to Facebook Ireland Ltd., which were disallowed by the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that Interactive Avenues was utilising Google Search Engine amongst others, to buy online advertisement space on behalf of its clients. Be that as it may, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held that the payments in question could not be characterised as royalty, while relying on the decisions in Urban Ladder (supra) and Play Games (supra). 35. It is also relevant to point out that in the context of interpreting Article 12(3) of India - Ireland DTAA, it is relevant to take note of the existing international jurisprudence. The Technical Advisory Group ("TAG") set up by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), in its Report (2001) on treaty characterisation of electronic commerce payments analysed various e- commerce transactions and suggested suitable characterisation for consideration flowing thereunder. One of the transactions analysed by TAG was advertising. In the context of online advertisements, including advertisements where the payment is based on number of clicks (i.e., CPC basis), TAG recommended taxability of such payments under Article 7 of the relevant DTAA. The said Article 7 deals with "business profits" and not royalty. Business profits under Article 7 are taxable only where the non-resident has a PE in India. 36. It is important to note that TAG was set up by OECD and its recommendation on changes to the OECD commentary were accepted by OECD. As per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis, (supra), OECD commentary is a necessary aid for the interpretation of provisions contained in DTAA. In fact, the High-Powered Committee ("HPC") on electronic commerce and taxation, set up by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") had also accepted the view taken by TAG and recommended taxing consideration flowing for online advertisement under Article 7, and not Article 12 of the relevant DTAA. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 63 of 126 37. Therefore, in terms of the international guidance as stated herein, the position regarding taxability of receipts from sale of online advertisement space is clear. Unless the non-resident, who is engaged in sale of online advertisement space, has a PE in India, no portion of receipts earned by it from sale of online advertisement space in India can be brought to tax in India as Act read with the relevant DTAA. 38. The above view is also supported by insertion of provisions related to Equalisation Levy (EL) by Finance Act, 2016. The root for the emergence of the EL can be traced to the dynamic business models that have the ability to transcend the link between an income producing activity and a specific location since these business are carried in the cyber place. The PE definition presently is based upon the physical presence criteria. The new business models also created challenges in characterizing the nature of payment - whether the payment is for services or for any IPR and hence royalty or whether it represents pure business profits. Various ITAT decisions, as discussed above, have held that income from sale of advertisement space on a website is not taxable in India if there is no PE of the foreign enterprise in India. It was held that such income is not to be regarded as royalty or FTS. Such tax challenges is addressed by the introduction of EL. Section 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 provides for charge of EL at 6% on consideration for specified services. Section 164(i) of Finance Act, 2016 provides that "specified service" means online advertisement, any provision for digital advertising space or any other facility or service for the purpose of online advertisement and includes any other service as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Thus, online advertisement is now covered under EL. If online advertisement was already covered under definition of royalty, then bringing it as part of EL scheme would not arise. 39. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we hold that the impugned payment cannot be characterized as royalty under the India-Ireland DTAA. It is ordered accordingly. 40. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed." ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 64 of 126 8.1. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, we inclined to decide the assessee's appeal in IT(IT)A No.1190/Bang/2014 in favour of the assessee.” 7.2.1 The above view has been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal from another decision in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 302. 7.2.2 Even in case of M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2845/Bang/2017 by order dated 28.02.2023, this Tribunal has taken a view that the payment received by the non-resident assessee on sale of online advertisement space directly from the advertisers in India is not taxable in the hands of the non- resident assessee. This Tribunal observed and held as under in the case of the payee being Google Ireland in order otcome to such conclusion. “8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The assessee in grounds of appeal has raised 35 grounds. Ground Nos. 13 to 15 relates to taxability of payments received by the assessee from GIPL as per terms of the distribution agreement dated 12.12.2005 as well as the payments received by the assessee directly from Indian advertisers. As regards chargeability of income received from GIPL is concerned we notice that in the hands of GIPL, the AO had show caused why the payment made by it to GIL M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. (assessee in this case) is not in the nature of royalty. The GIPL vide its reply dated 15.02.2013 explained that the payment made by it to GIL is in the nature of advertisement fees and not royalty under Act and DTAA. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the GIPL and passed order under Sections 201 & 201(1A) of the Act dated 22.02.2013 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012- 13. For assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Tribunal disposed off the case on 10.08.2022 on the short ground that order passed under Section 201 of the Act for ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 65 of 126 AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 are barred by limitation (ITA Nos. 1511 & 1512/Bang/2013 order dated 10.08.2022). As regards assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 in IT(TP)A 1513 to 1516/Bang/2013 the issue was decided in favour of GIPL by the Tribunal by holding that the impugned payment made by it to GIL cannot be characterised as royalty under Act or DTAA. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in the case of payer, i.e. GIPL reads as follows: - "13. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issues involved in these appeals revolve around the taxability of payments received by GIL from the assessee, who is engaged in the business of online advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that the said payments are in the nature of business profits, which are chargeable to tax in Ireland and not in India. Further, since the Department in these proceedings has never alleged that GIL had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 and accordingly by virtue of Article 7(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, the right to tax these profits is solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the I.T.Act for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the I.T.Act while making the subject payment to GIL. 14. For a proper adjudication of the above issue, it is necessary to briefly explain / examine the overview of the Google Adword Program, the role of the assessee under Adword Program M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. distribution agreement and the service agreement (ITES). The undisputed fact on record is that Google.com is a search engine developed by Google LLC, USA available freely to the world at large providing information on any subject based on the search made by the user. The link to various websites related to the search are provided in the search result. Additionally, Google LLC, USA has also developed a computerised advertising program known as Google AdWords Program. Google Ireland Ltd (GIL) is the exclusive licensee and principal operator of the computerised advertising program i.e., "Google AdWords ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 66 of 126 Program" for the whole world outside the USA. The Google AdWords program displays advertisements on Google's search engine. It has a separate website in which the advertisers have to agree to certain terms and conditions including the consideration payable for the targeted Advertisements and provide appropriate keywords on searching of which the websites of the advertisers would be displayed on top of the Google search engine with the abbreviation "Ad". For instance, pursuant to the search query "Fresh Flower Delivery", website of "Ferns N Petals" is listed two times among websites of various other businesses. The listing of the website of "Ferns N Petals" at the top of the list is a sponsored link accompanied by a small abbreviation "Ad", and the other listing is an organic search result as it does not have any such abbreviation. [Page 318 of paper book 1] This is because, "Ferns N Petals" utilised the "Google AdWords Program" to advertise its business on the Google Search Engine. The targeting of advertisement is achieved by using appropriate keywords, which can be selected only by the Advertiser. The Google AdWords Program contains a glossary of keywords together with helpful suggestions for the Advertiser to select appropriate keywords for his targeted advertisement. Google AdWords Program also contains a number of computer commands, by which the proposed Advertiser can achieve a more focused and particularised targeting, such as geographical or area targeting (advertisement to be shown only in a particular area, say the State of Karnataka) or period targeting (advertisement to be shown only in a certain period) or time targeting (advertisement to be shown only at certain fixed times during the day) or duration targeting (to be shown only for a fixed time duration each time). All these types of targeting are over and above the usual subject targeting and are achieved by simple computer commands, given by the proposed Advertiser on the Google AdWords Program. All these facilities are available on the Google AdWords Program to any member of the public, free of M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. charge, to enable him to formulate a suitable draft advertisement for his product or service. The only requirement is that the proposed Advertiser should have a website of his own / or entity giving particulars about his/ its business. The Google AdWords Program itself gives step-by-step and detailed instructions, so that even a ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 67 of 126 person who has a basic knowledge of computers and internet can create a draft advertisement and target it suitably by using the necessary computer commands (or tools). No payment is made for any use of the Google AdWords Program. After formulating the draft advertisement, the Advertiser is required to upload the same for display on Google Search Engine or other online properties using the Google AdWords Program. No payment is made for the same. Thereafter, the proposed advertisement is stored on the servers of Google Ireland Ltd (GIL) located outside India for undergoing a review process. 15. The review process is undertaken by GIL for advertisements uploaded by Advertisers from all around the world including India. Approximately 94% of global advertisements are reviewed by GIL through its automated system located outside India. Remaining global advertisements, which are not successfully reviewed by the automated system, are subjected to a manual review. For carrying out manual review, the balance 6% (approx.) global advertisements are forwarded to one of service centres of GIL's group entities, located in USA, Dublin, China, Korea, Japan, and India. An advertisement in English by an Indian Advertiser may go for manual review to any of these service centres. These service centres carry out the activity of manual review on a cost-plus basis. The assessee also carries out this activity under the ITES segment as per the services agreement dated 1.4.2004 entered into with GIL. The relevant terms and conditions of this agreement are as under: `THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT (''Agreement'') is entered into as of 1st April, 2004 (the "Effective Date''), by and between Google Ireland Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of Ireland ("Ireland'') and having its office at Seagrave House, 19120 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 02, Ireland, and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Prestige Sigma, 1st Floor, NO.3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India ('Go ogle India') and having a branch office at RMZ Future, Block A, 4'" Floor Plot No. 14, Road No.2, Hitec City Layout, Madhapur village, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 500081, Andhra Pradesh. A. WHEREAS, Google Ireland is in the business of developing, licensing, M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 68 of 126 selling, marketing and supporting certain Internet search, advertising system and information organization and management technology products and services to provide information, advertising, search and related services via the Internet, corporate intranets and private networks (collectively, 'Products ''); and B. WHEREAS, Google Ireland desires to avail services, relating to, information technology. Information technology enabled services and software development related services from Google India as per the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and C WHEREAS, Google India has expertise in rendering the above services and is willing to render such services for Google Ireland as an independent contractor on the terms and conditions of this Agreement: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS 1. 1 'Affiliate' shall mean any Person, whether de Jure or de facto, that directly or indirectly participates in the capital. control or management of either party or is under common ownership with a party to this Agreement or other entity actually controlled by, controlling. or under common control with a party to this Agreement. 1.2 "Confidential Information' shall mean all data and information of a confidential nature, Including know-how and trade secrets, relating to the business, the affairs, the products. the development or other projects or services of Google Ireland or its-suppliers or its affiliate. including but not limited to Intellectual Property. Confidential Information may be communicated orally, in writing. or in any other recorded, electronic or tangible form. Data and information shall be considered to be Confidential Information if (i) Google Ireland has marked them as such; (ii) Google Ireland, orally or in writing, has advised Google India of their confidential nature; or (iii) due to their character or nature, a reasonable person in a like position and under like circumstances would treat them as secret and confidential. Confidential Information does not include information: (i) that is in the public domain through no fault of the receiving party, (ii) that was previously known by receiving party, as established by written records of the receiving party prior to receipt of such information from the providing party or (iii) that was lawfully obtained by the receiving party from a third party without any obligations of confidentiality to Google Ireland. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 69 of 126 1.3 "Derivative works Work" shall mean (i) for copyrightable or copyrighted material, any modification. derivative works work (as defined in 17 USC. §101), translation, abridgment, revision or other form in which such material may be recast, transformed or adapted, (ii) for patentable or patented material, any improvement thereon. and (iii) for material protected by trade secret, any new material derived from such existing trade secret material, including new material which may be protected to copyright, patent and/or trade secret. M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. 1.4 "Documentation" shall mean any and all information, written or otherwise, provided by Goode Ireland to Google India describing the Intellectual Property or the Products and any updated, improved or modified version(s) of such materials including information contained in published written materials, on magnetic media or communicated by electronic means. 1.5 "intellectual Property' shall mean all intellectual, proprietary, and/or intangible property rights constituting, embodied in. pertaining to, used in or with respect to the business of Google Ireland, the Products, or the provision of related services and all tangible embodiments hereof, wherever located, including but not limited to the following: (i) all trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos or trade dress, including all registrations and applications therefor; (ii) all copyrights. Moral Rights (as defined below), and other rights in works of authorship including all registrations and applications therefor; (iii) all patents and patent applications. patentable Ideas, Inventions, innovations and improvements; (iv) all know-how and trade secrets; v) all design and code documentation, methodologies, processes, design information, design flows, encoding techniques, applications, product information. Formulae, engineering specifications, technical data, testing procedures, drawings and techniques and other proprietary information and materials of any kind; (vi) all software programs in both source code and object code format. including all testing software and software tools: (vii) all documentation, records, databases, drafts, designs, codes, drawings and algorithms: and (viii) all confidential and proprietary information related to any of (i) through (vii) above **** **** ****** 1.10 "Software Embodiments" shall mean all designs, discoveries, inventions. Products. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 70 of 126 procedures, improvements, developments, drawings, notes, Documentation. information. materials, Intellectual Property and Derivative works Works made, conceived or developed by Google India alone or with others which result from or relate to the Services 1.11 "Software Technology" shall mean all Intellectual Property, Confidential Information, Documentation, Derivative works Works and other technical data used by Google Ireland that are required, used or appropriate for the design and development of Products. including the reproduction, use, testing, operation, maintenance and service of such Products. **** **** ***** 2. SERVICES 2.1 Request Google India hereby agrees to perform certain information technology, information technology enabled services and software development services, as requested by Google Ireland from time to time, with respect to Products, utilizing Google Ireland Software Technology and other appropriate technology from Google Ireland or third parties which may be properly used for these purposes. Google Ireland will specify M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. the information technology, information technology enabled services and software development services to be performed, the Products to be worked on or used, the time line for completion and the specific results to be achieved (the Services"). 2.2 Performance. Upon agreement between Google Ireland and Google India as to the Services and completion date for a particular Services project, Google India will perform the Services. Google India agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform the Services in a timely fashion and as described to it by Google Ireland. Google India may not subcontract work under this Agreement unless specifically and to the extent set forth in the Services. Google India shall, at all times, be responsible for work done by its subcontractors within the scope of this Agreement as it is for work done by its own employees. At the option of Google Ireland, Google India shall make Goggle Ireland a party to the agreements that Google India may execute with its subcontractors and Google Ireland shall have the right to pre-approve the terms and conditions of such agreements **** **** ****** ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 71 of 126 5. OWNERSHIP 5.1 Intellectual Property. Google India acknowledges the exclusive right. title and interest of Google Ireland and its licensors and/or suppliers in and to any and all Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, Software Technology and Documentation, and Google India will not at any time do or cause to be done any act or thing impairing or tending to impair any part of said right, title and interest. Google India acknowledges and agrees that all such Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, Software Technology and Documentation shall remain the exclusive property of Google Ireland and, as applicable, its licensors and/or suppliers. 5. 2 Ownership of Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments. Google India shall keep Google Ireland promptly informed of Google India's development of any Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments and hereby irrevocably agrees that all such Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments shall forever be the sole and exclusive property of Google Ireland throughout the world from the date of its creation. As between Google Ireland and Google India no additional action shall be required to vest all right, title and ownership of such Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments in Google Ireland. Google India shall furnish to Google Ireland all such Derivative works Works and Software Embodiments developed by Google India as soon as they become available. From time to-time, promptly upon receipt of Google Ireland's request, Google India shall provide Google Ireland with assignments, in substantially the form of Exhibit B hereto to facilitate Google Ireland's perfection of its rights in the Derivative works Works and the Software Embodiments in any jurisdiction in the world. Google India shall also promptly make available to Google Ireland all Residuals. If Google India has any rights to Derivative works Works or Software Embodiments that cannot be assigned to Google Ireland under law. Google M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. India hereby waives the enforcement of such rights; and if Google India has any rights which cannot be assigned or waived under law, Google India hereby grants to Google Ireland an exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, transferable, folly paid licence, with rights to sub license and assign, to all such rights. Google India shall enter into agreements with its Representatives sufficient to permit Google India to make the foregoing grant of rights. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 72 of 126 ****** ****** ***** 6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 6.1 Access and Use of Confidential Information. During the course of performance of this Agreement, Google Ireland will disclose certain Confidential Information to Google India solely to permit Google India to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Google India agrees that such Confidential Information shall be kept secret by Google India during the term of this agreement and after the expiration hereof Google India shall refrain from using or exploiting any and all Confidential Information for any purposes or activities other than those contemplated in this Agreement. 6.2 Agreement Not to Disclose Confidential Information. Google India shall not disclose or facilitate disclosure of such Confidential Information to any Person without the prior consent of Google Ireland, except to its Representatives, and then only to the extent necessary for the performance of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. Google India shall cause each of its Representatives with access to the Confidential Information to enter into a nondisclosure agreement in a form approved by Google Ireland. Google India shall use the highest standard of care currently employed by any developer or distributor of high technology products in order to avoid disclosure or misappropriation of such Confidential Information. 6.3 Ownership and Return of Confidential Information. All files, lists, records. documents, drawings, specifications, equipment and computer programs which incorporate or refer to all or a portion of the Confidential Information shall remain the sole property of Go ogle Ireland or its licensors and suppliers. Such materials shall be promptly returned: (i) upon Google Ireland's reasonable request, or (ii) in accordance with Section 12 upon termination of this Agreement, whichever is earlier. **** ********* ****** 12.5 Rights and Duties of Termination. (a) Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement: (i) Google India shall have the right to retain any sums already paid by Google Ireland under this Agreement and Google Ireland shall pay all sums accrued, but not yet paid, that are due under this Agreement as of the date of such termination; ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 73 of 126 (ii) Google India shall discontinue all use of the Confidential Information, Documentation, Intellectual Property and other Software M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. Technology and shall have no further right with respect thereto. (iii) Google India shall (except as specified in subsection (b) below) immediately return to Google Ireland or (at Google Ireland's request) destroy, all copies of the Confidential Information, Documentation and other Software Embodiments, in its possession or control. Google India hereby expressly waives and agrees not to assert any right of detention whatsoever with respect to the foregoing.' 16. Prior to December 2005, an Indian Advertiser could get into a contract with GIL only, for purchasing online advertisement space. However, to accommodate Indian Advertiser(s) desirous to pay in Indian Rupees instead of foreign currency, GIL entered into the Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement dated 12.12.2005 with the-assessee, whereunder the assessee was appointed as a non-exclusive distributor of online advertisement space in India In terms thereof, the assessee set up its "Distribution Segment" for carrying out purchase and re- sale of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers. However, Indian Advertisers who were willing to pay in foreign currency, continued to transact directly with GIL. The Google AdWords Program and its features remains the same whether the Advertiser in India purchases online advertisement space from GIL or its authorised distributor i.e., the assessee. The only difference is where Indian Advertiser purchases from the assessee, it pays in INR whereas where Indian advertiser purchases from GIL, it pays in foreign currency. 17. In a case where the assessee is involved in purchase and re- sale of online advertisement space to Advertiser and if such Advertiser finds it difficult to use Google AdWords Program, he can get guidance and assistance from the employees of the assessee working under the Distribution Segment. However, substantial portion of Indian Advertisers in India prepare their draft advertisements themselves, with the aid of the Google AdWords Program itself. All this is completely free and is open to any member of the public. No payment is made for any use of the Google AdWords Program. In fact, even after using the Google AdWords Program and formulating / displaying an online advertisement, no payment is made ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 74 of 126 by the Advertiser, unless the Ad is clicked by an end-user. Relevant terms and conditions of the Distribution Agreement are as under:- 'Amended and Restated Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement. This Amended and Restated Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement ("Agreement'') is entered into as of December 12, 2005 (the M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. "Effective Date'') by and between Google Ireland Limited, with offices at 1st & 2nd Floors Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4 Ireland ("Google''),and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 1st Floor, Prestige Sigma, No. 3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001 ("Distributor''). WHEREAS 1. Google wishes to enter into the Distribution Agreement for its AdWords Program with Distributor; 2. Whereas Google Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Distributor entered into a Google AdWords Program Distribution Agreement, dated as of December 12, 2005.(the "Prior Agreement"), and Google Inc. assigned its rights and obligations under the Prior Agreement to Google; and 3. Google and Distributor desire to terminate the Prior Agreement and further desire that this Agreement supersede and replace the Prior Agreement in its entirety; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants, agreements, representations and warranties hereinafter set forth, Google and Distributor hereby agree as follows 1. Definitions. The following capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below. 1.1 ''Advertiser'' means an individual or business resident or having its principal place of business located within the Territory (as defined herein), where principal place of business is determined by the place of an entity's registration. 1.2 ''AdWords Program" means the advertising program currently offered by Google under the name ''AdWords.'' 1.3 "Brand Features" means the trade names. trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features of each party, respectively, as secured by such party from time to time. 1.4 "Designated Contact" means those contacts designated by each party as the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 75 of 126 point of contact or contacts for a particular function area related to this Agreement. 1.5 "Google Brand Features" means the Google trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features, with some but not all examples at "http://www.google. comipermissionsltrademarks.html" (or such other URL that Google may provide from time to time), and such other trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, or other distinctive brand features that Google may provide to Distributor for use solely under this Agreement. 1.6 "Intellectual Property Rights" shall mean any and all rights existing from time to time under patent law, copyright law, semiconductor chip protection law, moral rights law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. competition law, publicity rights law, privacy rights law, and any and all other proprietary rights, as well as, any and all applications, renewals, extensions, restorations and re-instatements thereof now or hereafter in force and effect worldwide. 1.7 "Keywords" means words chosen by an advertiser through the AdWords Program for a given set of one or more advertisements that are used to target those advertisements to potential customers. 1.10 "User Data" means all data and information provided by users via the AdWords Program, including all registration data, names, email addresses, other addresses, contact information, and other identifying information. 2. Appointment of Territory and Distributor Obligations. 2.1 Appointment of Territory. Google appoints Distributor as a non- exclusive authorized Distributor of Go ogle AdWords Program to Advertisers, all under and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Distributor shall conduct its business for its own account, in its own name, aid not as an agent, employee, partner, or franchisee of Google. Distributor may not solicit business from and shall not distribute AdWords Program to (even if unsolicited), any entity that does not have a principal place of business within the Territory. For the avoidance of doubt, an entity's principal place of business will be determined by the place of such entity's registration. All inquiries by any such entity for sale of advertising space shall be referred to the designated ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 76 of 126 Google contact within three (3) business days of receipt by Distributor of such inquiry. 2.2 Distribution & Marketing of AdWords Program. Distributor agrees to market and distribute AdWords Program to Advertisers in the designated Territory. within the broad guidelines provided by Google, with its reasonable commercial expertise and own sales force and customer service infrastructure. Distributor shall not subcontract any of its functions or obligations under this Agreement to any third parties. Distributor shall perform its obligations hereunder in a professional and workmanlike manner consistent with reasonably applicable industry standards and in accordance with this Agreement. Distributor will distribute AdWords Program in accordance with the training provided by Google. Failure to do so would constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be grounds for termination under section 9.3. 2.3 AdWords Program Sign Up Process. Distributor shall be responsible for uploading all Advertiser information that is required by Google for participation in the AdWords Program. 2.4 Licences; Approvals. Distributor shall be responsible for obtaining all licences and permits and for satisfying all formalities as may be required to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations in accordance with then- prevailing laws and regulations, including without limitation those necessary to enable Distributor to make payments to Google in US dollars. Distributor will promptly secure all governmental approvals as M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. may be required in the Territory or performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 2.5 Compliance with United States and Other Applicable Law; Conduct of Business. Distributor will comply with all United States and local laws and regulations applicable to the distributor of the goods and services. including but not limited to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and US regulations of international boycotts. Distributor shall (a) conduct business in a manner that reflects favorably at all times on the AdWords Program and on Google's goodwill and reputation, and (b) agrees to adhere to the minimum levels of service as specified in Exhibit C. Breach of this Section 2. 5 will constitute a material breach of this Agreement. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 77 of 126 2. 6 After-Sales Support. Distributor will provide after- sales services to Advertisers in accordance with the broad instructions, training and standards of Google. 3. Google Obligations. 3.1 Advertising Space. Google agrees to provide advertising space through the AdWords Program for distribution by Distributor to Advertisers as set forth herein. 3.2 Training. Google agrees to train Distributor. 3.3 Non-Exclusivity. This Agreement shall constitute a non- exclusive relationship between Google and Distributor. ***** ***** ****** 5. Reporting Requirements. 5.1 Information Provided by Google. Google will make available to Distributor online information about Advertiser activity, on an aggregate and individual basis. which information shall contain include (i) the total number of Keywords purchased by Advertisers, (ii) the number of impressions of Advertisers' advertisement delivered across the Google network, (iii) the number of clicks delivered across the Google network for Advertisers' advertisement an (iv) the cost of clicks delivered across the Google network for Advertisers' advertisement. Distributor must set up AdWords Program advertising accounts in order to receive such online information. Google reserves the right, but has no obligation, to send reports about an Advertiser's activity directly to such Advertiser. If an Advertiser makes a request to Distributor to receive a user name and password to access such Advertisers individual AdWords Program account activity, Distributor' will grant such request after approval from Google. ***** ***** ****** 6. Brand features. Each party shall own all right, title and interest, including without limitation all Intellectual Property Rights, relating to its Brand Features. Google grants to Distributor nonexclusive and non sub- licensable licence during the Term to display Google Brand Features solely for the purpose of Distributor's marketing and distribution of M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. AdWords Program under the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Distributor will submit all materials of any kind containing the Brand Features) to Google for written approval prior to release to the public. Furthermore, ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 78 of 126 Distributor agrees to adhere to Google's then-current Brand Features use guidelines, and any content referenced or included therein, which may be found at the following URL: http://www.google.comlpermissionslguidelines.html (or such other URL that Google may provide from time to time) and to such other guidelines or restrictions provided by Google in writing to Distributor in connection herewith. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Distributor shall not acquire any right, title or interest in or to the Google Brand Features. All use by Google of Distributor Brand features (including any goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of Distributor and all use by Distributor of Go ogle Brand Features (including any goodwill associated therewith) shall inure to the benefit of Google. No party shall challenge or assist others to challenge the Brand Features of the other party (except to protect such party's rights with respect to its own Brand Features) or the registration thereof by the other party, nor shall either party attempt to register any Brand Features or domain names that are confusingly similar to those of the other party. 7. Confidentiality; Limitation on Public Announcements. Disclosure of confidential and/or proprietary information disclosed hereunder, including the User Data (including any aggregated User Data), the existence and content of this Agreement, and any information provided pursuant to this Agreement, shall be governed by the Google Standard Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (introductory paragraph and Sections 1 through 12, inclusive), executed by the parties prior to or concurrently with this Agreement (the "NDA ''), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and which is incorporated by reference herein. Each party acknowledges and agrees that it will obtain the other party's prior written approval, which shall include approval of any proposed text, before making any public announcements or communication, including, but not limited to, any press releases, online publishing or direct mailings concerning or related to the existence or terms of this Agreement. In addition. Distributor agrees to waive all claims against and release Google (and its affiliates, partners and representatives) from any claims or losses in connection with any above publications made by Google. 8. User Data. Google owns all right, title, and interest in and to all information and data, including the User Data collected by Google relating to Advertisers in connection ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 79 of 126 with the provision of the AdWords Program. Distributor shall maintain all User Data in accordance with local law and regulation applicable to such data. and shall implement policies and procedures with respect to the User Data that are at least as protective of the rights of the Advertisers as is provided in the Google Privacy Policy set forth at http://wwvv.qoogle.comlprivacy.html and all relevant policies implied therein ****** ****** ****** M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. 9.4 Effect of Termination. Upon any termination or expiration of this Agreement, (i) all rights and licences granted by one party to the other. including but not limited to rights to use the other party's Brand Features shall cease immediately, (ii) each party shall promptly return to the other party, or destroy and certify the destruction of all Confidential Information as defined in the NDA and Section 7 of this Agreement) of the other party, and (iii) except for a termination pursuant to Section 9.2 or Section 9.3 above. Google will continue to serve advertisements as provided in this Agreement up to the earlier date to occur of (x) the date that the services provided by Google exhaust any amounts prepaid by Distributor, or (y) the date that is thirty (30) days after expiration or termination of the Agreement. Termination or expiration of this Agreement. in part or in whole. shall not limit either party from pursuing other remedies available to it, nor shall Distributor be relieved of its obligation to pay all charges that have accrued or are otherwise owed under this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement does not prevent Distributor from participating in the AdWords Program pursuant to the general terms and conditions made publicly available by Google from time to time in its sole discretion. ***** ***** ***** EXHIBIT C Service Level Agreement Distributor shall be solely responsible for providing all customer services to Advertisers. according to the procedures, and in compliance with standards, provided by Google. All Advertisers shall be instructed by Distributor to contact Distributor directly for support and not to communicate directly with Google. Distributor agrees that it shall provide at least the following minimum levels of service: Business hours phone support to all Advertisers. E-mail queries from Advertisers ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 80 of 126 shall be responded to within one (1) business day with immediate resolution of any issues when possible. Issues that cannot immediately be resolved by Distributor based on training and procedures provided under the Agreement must be communicated promptly to Google by Distributor and Google will assist Distributor in determining the best solution. Google agrees that it shall provide at least the following minimum levels of service to Distributor: Customer Queries (as defined below), up to the E-Mail Escalation Limit (as defined below), shall be responded to within one (1) business day "Customer Queries" shall mean e-mails sent from Distributor to Google related to Advertiser issues, but excluding general communications between Distributor and Google (e.g. billing questions, training information) and technical issues that only Google can solve. "E-Mail Escalation Limit" shall equal five (5) e- mails per month for M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. everyone hundred (100) Advertisers serviced by Distributor, provided, however that the E-Mail Escalation Limit shall only apply beginning thirty (30) days after the completion of tile training. Timing for responses to Customer Queries from Distributor beyond the E- Mail Escalation Limit shall be at Google's sole discretion. Distributor agrees that Google will have the right, to review samples of communications sent to Advertisers to assess the quality of responses and modify communications accordingly. Google shall also have the right to send questionnaires to Distributor's customers to ensure that Distributor is providing an adequate level of service. Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement This Mutual Non- Disclosure Agreement (''Agreement'') is made and entered into between Google Ireland Limited, for itself and its subsidiaries and affiliates ("Google''), and "Participant' identified below, individually referred to as a ''Party'' and collectively referred to as the "Parties". The Parties wish to exchange Confidential Information (as defined below in Section 2) for the following purpose(s): a) to evaluate whether to enter into a contemplated business transaction; and b) if the Parties enter into an agreement related to such business transaction, to fulfill each Party's confidentiality obligations to the extent the terms set forth below are incorporated therein (the ''Purpose''). The Parties have entered into this Agreement to protect the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 81 of 126 confidentiality of information in accordance with the following terms: 1. The Effective Date of this Agreement is December 12, 2005. 2. In connection with the Purpose, a Party may disclose certain information it considers confidential and/or proprietary ("Confidential Information '') to the other Party including, but not limited to, tangible, intangible, visual, electronic, present, or future information such as: (a) trade secrets; (b) financial information, including pricing; (c) technical information, including research, development, procedures, algorithms, data, designs. and know-how; (d) business information, including operations, planning, marketing interests, and products; (e) the terms of any agreement entered into between the Parties and the discussions, negotiations and proposals related thereto; and (f) information acquired during any facilities tours. 3. The Party receiving Confidential Information (a "Recipient'') will only have a duty to protect Confidential Information disclosed to it by the other Party ("Discloser''): (a) if it is clearly and conspicuously marked as "confidential" or with a similar designation; (b) if it is identified by the Discloser as confidential and/or proprietary before, during. or promptly after presentation or communication; or (c) if it is disclosed in a manner in which the Discloser reasonably communicated, or the Recipient should reasonably have understood under the circumstances including without limitation those described in Section 2 above, that the disclosure should be treated as confidential whether or not the specific designation "confidential" or any similar designation is used. M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. 4. A Recipient will use the Confidential Information only for the Purpose described above. A Recipient will use the same degree of care. but no less than a reasonable degree of care, as the Recipient uses with respect to its own information of a similar nature to protect the Confidential Information and to prevent: (a) any use of Confidential Information in violation of this agreement; and/or (b) communication of Confidential Information to any unauthorized third parties. Confidential Information may only be disseminated to employees, directors, agents or third party contractors of Recipient with a need to know and who have first signed an agreement with either of the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 82 of 126 Parties containing confidentiality provisions substantially similar to those set forth herein. ***** ***** ***** 6. This Agreement imposes no obligation upon a Recipient with respect to Confidential Information that: (a) was known to the Recipient before receipt from the Discloser; (b) is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the Recipient; (c) is rightfully received by the Recipient from a third party without a duty of confidentiality; (d) is independently developed by the Recipient without a breach of this Agreement; (e) is disclosed by the Recipient with the Discloser's prior written approval; or (f) is required to be disclosed by operation of law, court order or other governmental demand ("Process''); provided that (i) the Recipient shall immediately notify the Discloser of such Process; and (ii) the Recipient shall not produce or disclose Confidential Information in response to the Process unless the Discloser has: (a) requested protection from the legal or governmental authority requiring the Process and such request has been denied, (b) consented in writing to the production or disclosure of the Confidential Information in response to the Process, or (c) taken no action to protect its interest in the Confidential Information within 14 business days after receipt of notice from the Recipient of its obligation to produce or disclose confidential information in response to the Process ***** ***** ******* 11. No Party acquires any intellectual property rights under II Agreement (including, but not limited to, patent, copyright, and trademark rights) except the limited rights necessary to carry out the Purpose as forth in this Agreement. 12. Each Party acknowledges that damages for improper disclosure Confidential Information may be irreparable; therefore, the injured Party is entitled to seek equitable relief, including injunction and preliminary injunction, in addition to all other remedies available to it. 18. The standard agreement entered into between the assessee and the advertisers is as under:- Google Advertising Agreement Customer Invoicing address Advertising third party Name and address ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 83 of 126 Advertiser Advertising third party M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. Customer will promptly notify Google of any change in address and contact name information for billing purpose. Agreement name. Agreement type Agreement Id Purchase order # Target start date End date Agreement budget Service tax Billing Method Payment Terms (payment due within the following number of days from invoice date) When applicable, Customer's purchase order number references above is required and must be provided by customer for Google Invoicing This Adwords Agreement ('SA') shall be governed by terms and conditions ('Terms and Conditions) available at the following URL: http.l/www.google.co. inladsladwordsterms. html All terms contained in the Terms and Conditions are made a part of this SA through incorporation by reference. The signatory of this Service Agreement represents that she has read and agrees to such Terms and Conditions and the terms of SA. There shall be no force or effect to any different or additional terms of any related SA, purchase order or sales document. Google may decide at any lime, in its sole discretion, to change, suspend or discontinue all or any aspect of its advertising programs, including their availability, and shall notify Customer of material changes and discontinuauons. Google shall have no liability for such decision. By signing below, Customer represents and warrants that all client information, including but not limited to credit card information and invoicing information, provided herein is complete and accurate and that no additional information is necessary for payment of Google invoices. Customer's campaign(s) may go live upon posting. at which time Google shall send Customer an email notifying customer it has 72 hours to modify Customers campaign keywords and settings as posted. During those 72 hours, Google is only liable to Customer for keywords or settings discrepancies if Customer can certify to Google by its contemporaneous M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 84 of 126 documental (evidence that Google posted keywords or settings other than those requested by Customer. The account (as modified by Customer, or if unmodified, as initially posted) will be deemed approved by Customer 72 hours after it initially posts. Terms of Payment. If Google, at any time, deems itself insecure with respect to Customer's ability to meet its financial obligations under this SA, Google shall have the right to require pre-payment of the total amount due for the SA in advance of the Target Start Date or as otherwise requested by Google. Customer must remit all payments under this SA to Google by the due date indicated on the Invoice(s). In the event of nonpayment, Google reserves the right to immediately terminate this SA upon written notice to Customer and immediately suspend the entire Customer account. Late payments are subject to interest payments as set forth in the Terms and Conditions. Methods of Billing: Monthly Invoicing: Customer will be billed at the end of the month, based on the actual number of clicks or other billing methods Customer may choose to participate in as described in the FAQ (e.g. cost per impression programs). Customer's credit must first be approved by Google in order for this billing method to apply. Prepayment: Customer will pay the total agreement budget prior to any campaign launch. Acceptance and terms of prepayment are at Google's sole discretion. Prepayment does not obligate Google to deliver any Ad Words ads notwithstanding acceptance of prepayment by Google. Unused portions of prepayments will be returned to Customer after the end date to the extent that there are no amounts still due to Google. Right To Reject Advertisement: All advertisements submitted by Customer are subject to Google's approval. Google reserves the right to review, reject or remove any SA, advertisement, or URL link, except that Google will not cancel placement of an SA, advertisement, or URL link due to inventory demand for other advertisers. Customer pre- authorises Google to modify or rearrange the text elements in advertising creative submitted by Customer. Please carefully read these Google Advertising Agreement terms and conditions ("Agreement') before selecting '1 Accept' and submitting your selection. By selecting 'I Accept', you agree to be legally bound by the terms of this ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 85 of 126 agreement. If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement please select M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. "1 Decline" and submit your selection. Customer signature Name Title Company Google Signature Name Title Company." 19. The Standard Google India Private Limited Advertising Program Terms are as under: "Google India Private Limited Advertising Program Terms These Google India Private Limited Advertising Program Terms ("Terms") are entered into by, as applicable, the customer signing these Terms or any document that references these Terms or that accepts these Terms electronically ("Customer") and Google India Private Limited ("Google'~. These Terms govern Google's advertising program(s) ("Program") as further described in the applicable Program's frequently asked questions at www.google.com (the "FAQs') and, as applicable, Customer's participation in any such Program (s), Customer's online management of any advertising campaigns ("Online Management") and/or any insertion orders ("IO" executed by and between the parties (together the "Agreement"). Google and Customer hereby agree and acknowledge: 1. Policies. Program use is subject to all applicable Google and Partner ad specification requirements and policies, including without limitation the Editorial Guidelines (adwords google.com/select/guidelines.html) Google Privacy Policy (www.google.com/privacy.html) and Trademark Guidelines www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html), (collectively, "Policies"). Policies may be modified any time. Customer shall direct only to Google communications regarding Customer ads on Partner Properties. Some Program features are identified as "Beta," "Ad Experiment," or otherwise unsupported ("Beta Features"). To the fullest extent permitted by law, Beta Features are provided "as is" and at Customer's option and risk. Customer shall not disclose to any third party any information from Beta Features, existence of non-public Beta Features or access to Beta Features. Google may, at its sole discretion and without any prior consent from the Customer, modify ads to comply with any Policies. 2. The Program: Customer is solely responsible for all: (a) ad targeting options and keywords (collectively "Targets") and all ad content, ad information, and ad URLs ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 86 of 126 ("Creative"), whether generated by or for Customer; and (b) web sites. services and landing pages which Creative links or directs viewers to, and advertised services and products (collectively "Services"). Customer shall protect any Customer passwords and takes full responsibility for Customer's own, and third party, use of M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. any Customer accounts. Ads may be placed on (y) any content or property provided by Google ("Google Property"), and unless opted-out by Customer (z) any other content or property provided by a third party ( "Partner") upon which Google places ads ("Partner Property"). With respect to Adwords online auction-based advertising, Google may send Customer an email notifying Customer it has 72 hours ("Modification Period") to modify keywords and settings as posted. The account (as modified by Customer otherwise as initially posted) is deemed approved by Customer after the Modification Period, and Google is only liable to Customer for discrepancies if Customer can certify by contemporaneous documentary evidence that Google posted ads not approved by Customer. With respect to all other advertising, Customer must provide Google with all relevant Creative by the due date set forth in that advertising Program's applicable FAQ or as otherwise communicated by Google. Customer grants Google permission to utilize an automated software program to retrieve and analyze websites associated with the Services for ad quality and serving purposes, unless Customer specifically opts out of the evaluation in a manner specified by Google. Google or Partners may reject or remove any ad or Target any time for any or no reason. Google may modify the Program or these Terms at any time without liability and your use of the Program after notice that Terms have changed indicates acceptance of the Terms. 3. Cancellation. Customer may independently cancel advertising itself online through Customer's account. if any, or, if such online cancellation functionality is not available, with prior written notice to Google, including electronic mail. AdWords online auction-based advertising cancelled online will cease serving upon cancellation. All other advertising may be subject to Google's ability to re- schedule reserved inventory or cancel advertisements already in production. Cancelled advertisements may be published despite cancellation if cancellation of those ads ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 87 of 126 occurs after any applicable commitment date as set forth in advance by the Partner or Google in which case Customer must pay for those ads. Google may cancel immediately any 10, any of its advertising Programs, or these Terms at any time with notice, in which case Customer will be responsible for any ads already run. Google may modify any of its advertising Programs at any time without liability. Sections I, 2, 3,5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 4. Prohibited Uses; License Grant; Representations and Warranties. Customer shall not, and shall not authorize any party to: (a) generate automated, fraudulent or otherwise invalid impressions, inquiries, conversions, clicks or other actions; (b) use any automated means or form of scraping or data extraction to access, query or otherwise collect Google advertising related information from any Adwords website or property except as expressly permitted by Google; or (c) advertise anything illegal or engage in any illegal or fraudulent business practice. Customer represents and warrants that it holds and hereby grants Google and Partners all rights (including without limitation any copyright, trademark, patent. publicity or other rights) in Creative. Services and M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. Targets needed for Google and Partner to operate Google's advertising programs for Customer (including without limitation any rights needed to host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, modify, distribute, perform. display, reformat. excerpt, analyze, and create algorithms from and derivative works of Creative or Targets) in connection with this Agreement ("Use"). Customer represents and warrants that LV) all Customer information is complete, correct and current; and (z) any Use hereunder and Customer's Creative, Targets, and Customer's Services will not violate or encourage violation of any applicable laws, regulations, code of conduct, or third party rights (including, without limitation, intellectual property rights). Violation of the foregoing may result in immediate termination of this Agreement or customer's account without notice and may subject Customer to legal penalties and consequences. 5. Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law. GOOGLE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR NON- ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 88 of 126 INFRINGEMENT, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Google disclaims all guarantees regarding positioning or the levels or timing of (i) costs per click, (ii) click through rates, (iii) availability and delivery of any impressions, Creative, or Targets on any Partner Property, Google Property, or section thereof, (iv) clicks (v) conversions or other results for any ads or Targets (vi) the accuracy of Partner data (e.g. reach, size of audience, demographics or other purported characteristics of audience), and (vii) the adjacency or placement of advertisements within a Program. EXCEPT FOR indemnification AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THIRD PARTIES HEREUNDER AND CUSTOMER'S BREACHES OF SECTION 1, to the fullest extent permitted by law: (a) NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, INTEREST, GOODWILL, LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA OR FOR ANY LOSS OR INTERRUPTION TO CUSTOMER'S BUSINESS) WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY; AND (b) EACH PARTY'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO THE OTHER IS LIMITED TO AMOUNTS PAID OR PAYABLE TO GOOGLE BY CUSTOMER FOR THE AD GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM. Except for payment obligations, neither party is liable for failure or delay resulting from a condition beyond the reasonable control of the party, including but not limited to acts of God, government, terrorism, natural disaster, labor conditions and power failures. 6. Agency. Customer represents and warrants that (a) it is authorized to act on behalf of and has bound to this Agreement any third party for which Customer advertises (a "Principal'') (b) as between Principals and Customer, the Principal owns any rights to Program information in M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. connection with those advertisements, and (c) Customer shall not disclose Principal's Program information to any other party without Principal's consent. 7. Payment Customer shall be responsible for all charges up to the amount of each 10, or as set in an online account, ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 89 of 126 and shall pay all charges in Indian Rupees or in such other currency as agreed to in writing by the parties. Unless agreed to by the parties in writing, Customer shall pay all charges in accordance with the applicable 10 or Program FAQ. Late payments bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month (or the highest rate permitted by law, if less). Charges are exclusive of taxes, cesses or other applicable levies. Customer is responsible for paying (y) all applicable taxes, cesses and levies, government charges, and (z) reasonable expenses and attorneys fees Google incurs collecting late amounts. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Customer waives all claims relating to charges unless claimed within 60 days after the charge (this does not affect Customer's credit card issuer rights). Charges are solely based on Google's measurements for the applicable Program, unless otherwise agreed in writing. To the fullest extent permitted by law, refunds (if any) are at the discretion of Google and only in the form of advertising credit for only Google Properties. Nothing in these Terms or an 10 may obligate Google to extend credit to any party. Customer acknowledges and agrees that any credit card and related billing and payment information that Customer provides to Google may be shared by Google with companies who work on Google's behalf, such as payment processors and/or credit agencies, solely for the purposes of checking credit, effecting payment to Google and servicing Customer's account. Google may also provide information in response to valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants and court orders, or to establish or exercise its legal rights or defend against legal claims. Google shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of such information by such third parties. 8. Indemnification. Customer shall indemnify without limit and defend Google, its Partners, agents, affiliates, and licensors from any third party claim or liability (collectively, "Liabilities"), arising out of Use, Customer's Program use, Targets, Creative and Services and breach of the Agreement. Partners shall be deemed third party beneficiaries of the above Partner indemnity. Without limitation to the generality of the foregoing, Customer shall indemnify Google against any Liabilities or losses arising out of any claim based on any act or allegation of infringement of intellectual property, misrepresentation or defamation. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 90 of 126 9. Arbitration. The parties agree that they will try in good faith to settle within thirty (30) days any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of relating to or in connection with this Agreement ("Dispute''). If the Dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days after such Dispute arose, such Dispute must be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration, to which the Parties hereto expressly agree and submit. The arbitration will be submitted to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") and conducted in accordance M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA in force as of the date of this Agreement ("Rules''). Pre-hearing information exchange shall be limited to the reasonable production of relevant, non-privileged documents and carried out expeditiously. There will be one arbitrator selected by mutual agreement of the Parties. The arbitrator will not act as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono. It is the intent of the parties that, barring extraordinary circumstances, arbitration proceedings will be concluded within 60 days from the date the arbitrator is appointed. The arbitrator may extend this time limit in the interests of justice. Failure to adhere to this time limit shall not constitute a basis for challenging the award. The arbitration will be conducted in English and the place of arbitration will be Bangalore, India. Either party may, without waiving any remedy under this Agreement, apply to the arbitrator and/or any court having jurisdiction any interim, provisional, injunctive or conservatory relief that is necessary to protect the rights or property of that party until the arbitration award is rendered or the Dispute is otherwise resolved. Any decision rendered by the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties, and judgment thereon may be entered by any court of competent jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, any court that has jurisdiction over either of the parties or any of their assets. The parties expressly agree that the arbitrator will be empowered to award and order equitable or injunctive relief with respect to matters brought before him, provided however, that such remedy or relief is consistent with the remedies and limitations set forth in this Agreement. The parties agree that all arbitral proceedings conducted pursuant to this Section, including the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 91 of 126 any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law or otherwise provided herein. The parties may, however, disclose such information to an appropriate court, as is necessary to seek enforcement of any award rendered by the arbitrator or to seek any interim, provisional, injunctive or conservatory relief pursuant to the terms hereof 10. Miscellaneous. The Agreement must be construed as if both parties jointly wrote it, governed by Indian law. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces any other applicable agreements, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hereof Any conflicting or additional terms contained in additional documents (e.g. reference to a purchase order number) or oral discussions are void. Each party shall not disclose the terms or conditions of these Terms to any third party, except to its professional advisors under a strict duty of confidentiality or as necessary to comply with a government law, rule or regulation. Customer may grant approvals, permissions, extensions and consents by email, but any modifications by Customer to the Agreement must be made in a writing executed by both parties. Any notices to Google must be sent to Google India Pvt. Ltd., No.3, RMZ Infinity - Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th Floor, Bangalore, 560016, India with a copy to Legal M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. Department, via confirmed facsimile, with a copy sent via first class or air mail or overnight courier, and are deemed given upon receipt. Notice to Customer may be effected by sending email to the email address specified in Customer's account, or by posting a message to Customer's account interface, and is deemed received when sent (for email) or no more than 15 days after having been posted (for messages in Customer's account interface). A waiver of any default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Unenforceable provisions will be modified 10 reflect the parties' intention and only to the extent necessary to make them enforceable, and remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain in full effect. Customer may not assign any of its rights hereunder and any such attempt is void. Google and Customer and Google and Partners are not legal partners or agents, but are independent ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 92 of 126 contractors. In the event that these Terms or an Advertising Program expire or is terminated, Google shall not be obligated to return any materials to Customer. 11. Term: Unless terminated earlier under the terms of this Agreement This Agreement shall have a term of 1 year from the latest of the signature dates below. Customer acknowledges and agrees that if this Agreement expires or is terminated any Customer campaigns in effect as of the date of such expiration or termination or any new campaigns commenced after such expiration or termination shall run thereafter subject to Google's then standard terms and conditions for the Program." 20. Under the Distribution Agreement, the assessee acted as a distributor of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers. The assessee was ensured a specified margin over its cost from GIL. If in case, the revenue recorded by the assessee from the sale of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers was less than its cost (incurred in connection with its distribution function) plus the specified margin, GIL was required to compensate the assessee for the difference. However, where the revenue recorded by the assessee from the onward sale of online advertisement space to Indian Advertisers was more than the cost plus the specified margin of the assessee, the assessee was required to make the payment to GIL. 21. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the DTAA between India - Ireland is applicable in respect of the payments made by the assessee to Google Ireland. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd v CIT (supra) at para 108 of its judgment held as under:- "108. Fourthly, the High Court is not correct in referring to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act after considering it in the manner that it has and then applying it to interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains, "India-Ireland M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 93 of 126 the Income-tax Act, read with explanation 4 thereof has not been properly appreciated." 22. Thus, the definition of the term "royalty" in Article 12(3) of the India - Ireland DT AA override the definition of "royalty" as provided in Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi) of the Act by virtue of section 90(2). Therefore, the definition of the term "royalty" under the India - Ireland DTAA being more beneficial to the assessee must only be considered in these appeals. The findings of the AO and CIT(A) as regards the characterisation of the payments to Google Ireland as 'Royalty' under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act is therefore not relevant and consequently correctness of these findings need not be adjudicated in these appeals. Similarly, we do not think it is necessary to decide whether the services agreement and distribution agreement are interlinked or complementary to each other. ITES services are enabling the overall business and not directly related to generating revenue from Adword Program in India. Revenue is generated by end customers clicking on link and not because of ITES services. Even if it is interlinked, the internal tools / intangibles / software of Google Ireland are admittedly not transferred to assessee. The assessee has only right to use these for rendering ITES services. Applying ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra), this cannot result in royalty. We proceed to examine whether the definition of 'Royalty' as per Article 12 of India- Ireland DT AA is satisfied in the present case considering the distribution agreement, services agreement and the facts on record. 23. The definition of 'Royalty' as per Article 12(3)(a) of India - Ireland DTAA is as under:- "3. (a) The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph film or films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process or for the use of or the right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, other than an aircraft or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. 24. The first limb of the above definition treats consideration for the use of or the right to use any copyright of literary, artistic or M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 94 of 126 scientific work including cinematograph film or films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting as royalty. The computerised advertising program i.e., "Google AdWords Program" is essentially a computer program i.e., a computer software. As per Explanation 3 to section 9(l)(vi), a computer software means any computer programme recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device and includes any such programme or any customized electronic data. It is not in dispute that the Adwords Program is used by the assessee in the present case be it for the purpose of discharging its functions under the distribution agreement or under the services agreement. However, the question for our consideration is whether the copyright in "Google AdWords Program" is used by the assessee or not? In order to attract definition of 'Royalty', there has to be use or right to use, inter alia, any copyright. The issue as to whether usage of computer software tantamounts to royalty, is now resolved by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra). The Supreme Court grouped the various appeals on the aspect of royalty issue on software payments into four categories as under:- Category 1: Computer software purchased by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign non-resident supplier/manufacturer. Category 2: Purchase of computer software by resident Indian companies that act as distributors/resellers, from foreign non- resident suppliers for the purpose reselling the same to resident Indian users. Category 3: Purchase of software by foreign non-resident distributor from a foreign non-resident supplier for the purpose of reselling the same to Indian distributors or end- users. Category 4: Computer software affixed onto a hardware and sold as an integrated unit/equipment by foreign non-resident suppliers to Indian distributors or end- users. 25. The Supreme Court made a reference to the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and on the interpretation of the same, it accepted the difference between a copyright right and copyrighted article. The important observations of the Supreme Court are summarized as follows:- "71. The transfer of "all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 95 of 126 in respect of any copyright", in the context of computer software, is referable to sections 14(a), 14(b) and 30 of the Copyright Act. As has been held hereinabove, the expression "in respect of' is equivalent to "in" or "attributable to". Thus, explanation 2(v) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, when it speaks of "all of any rights ... in respect of copyright" is certainly more expansive than the DTAA provision, which speaks of the "use of, or the right to use" any copyright. 72. However, when it comes to the expression "use of, or the right to use", the same position would obtain under explanation 2(v) of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as, there must, under the licence granted or sale made, be a transfer of any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) or 14(b) of the Copyright Act, for explanation 2(v) to apply. To this extent. there will be no difference in the position between the definition of "royalties" in the DTAAs and the definition of "royalty" in Explanation 2(v) of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. 73. Even if we were to consider the ambit of "royalty" only under the Income-tax Act on the footing that none of the DT AAs apply to the facts of these cases, the definition of royalty that is contained in explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act would make it clear that there has to be a transfer of "all or any rights" which includes the grant of a licence in respect of any copyright in a literary work. The expression "including the granting of a licence" in clause (v) of explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, would necessarily mean a licence in which transfer is made of an interest in rights "in respect of' copyright, namely, that there is a parting with an interest in any of the rights mentioned in section 14(b) read with section 14(a) of the Copyright Act. To this extent, there will be no difference between the position under the DTAA and Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. ***** ******** ****** ........... 97. When, under a non- exclusive licence, an end-user gets the right to use computer software in the form of a CD, the end-user only receives a right to use the software and nothing more. The end-user does not get any of the rights that the owner continues to retain under section 14(b) of the Copyright Act read with sub-section (a)(i)-(vii) thereof Thus, the conclusion that when computer software is licensed for use under an EULA, what is also licensed is the right to use the copyright embedded therein, is wholly incorrect. The ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 96 of 126 licence for the use of a product under an EULA cannot be construed as the licence spoken of in section 30 of the Copyright Act, as such EULA only imposes restrictive conditions upon the end-user and does not part with any interest relatable to any rights mentioned in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act. **** ******** ****** 100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income- tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof and Article 3(2) of the DTAA. Further, the M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. expression "copyright" has to be understood in the context of the statute which deals with it, it being accepted that municipal laws which apply in the Contracting States must be applied unless there is any repugnancy to the terms of the DTAA. For all these reasons, the determination of the AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd (supra) does not state the law correctly and is thus set aside. **** ******** ****** 108. Fourthly, the High Court is not correct in referring to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act after considering it in the manner that it has and then applying it to interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income And Capital Gains. ["India- Ireland DTAA'']. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read with explanation 4 thereof has not been properly appreciated **** ******** ****** 117. The conclusions that can be derived on a reading of the aforesaid judgments are as follows: (i) Copyright is an exclusive right, which is negative in nature, being a right to restrict others from doing certain acts. (ii) Copyright is an intangible, incorporeal right, in the nature of a privilege, which is quite independent of any material substance. Ownership of copyright in a work is ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 97 of 126 different from the ownership of the physical material in which the copyrighted work may happen to be embodied An obvious example is the purchaser of a book or a CD/DVD, who becomes the owner of the physical article, but does not become the owner of the copyright inherent in the work, such copyright remaining exclusively with the owner. (iii) Parting with copyright entails parting with the right to do any of the acts mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act. The transfer of the material substance does not, of itself, serve to transfer the copyright therein. The transfer of the ownership of the physical substance, in which copyright subsists, gives the purchaser the right to do with it whatever he pleases, except the right to reproduce the same and issue it to the public, unless such copies are already in circulation, and the other acts mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act. (iv) A licence from a copyright owner, conferring no proprietary interest on the licensee, does not entail parting with any copyright, and is different from a licence issued under section 30 of the Copyright Act, which is a licence which grants the licensee an interest in the rights mentioned in section 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act. Where the core of a transaction is to authorize the end-user to have access to and make use of M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. the "licensed" computer software product over which the licensee has no exclusive rights, no copyright is parted with and consequently, no infringement takes place, as is recognized by section 52(l)(aa) of the Copyright Act. It makes no difference whether the end-user is enabled to use computer software that is customised to its specifications or otherwise. (v) A non-exclusive, non-transferable licence, merely enabling the use of a copyright product, is in the nature of restrictive conditions which are ancillary to such use, and cannot be construed as a licence to enjoy all or any of the enumerated rights mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act. or create any interest in any such rights so as to attract section 30 of the Copyright Act. (vi) The right to reproduce and the right to use computer software are distinct and separate rights, as has been recognized in State Bank of India (supra) (see paragraph 21), former amounting to parting with copyright and the latter, in the context of no exclusive EULAs, not being so." ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 98 of 126 26. Having considered the above principles in the context of copyright royalty, we proceed to examine the applicability of the above principles to the facts of the present case particularly with reference to distribution agreement, services agreement and other facts on record. As per para 2.1 of the distribution agreement, assessee is appointed as a non exclusive authorised distributor of Google Adwords program to Advertisers. Para 2.2 of the agreement states that the distributor agrees to market and distribute Adwords program to advertisers within the broad guidelines provided by Google with its reasonable commercial expertise and own sales force and customer service infrastructure. It also provides that the Distributor will distribute the AdWords program in accordance with the training provided by Google. As per para 2.3, distributor shall be responsible for uploading all Advertiser information that is required by Google for participation in the Adwords Program. As per para 2.6, distributor will provide after sales services to Advertisers in accordance with the broad instructions, training and standards of Google. The advertising space is provided by GIL through the Adwords program and GIL also agreed to train the distributor. It is specifically agreed that the agreement shall constitute a non exclusive relationship between Google Ireland and distributor. Google Ireland owns all right, title and interest in and to all information and data including the user data collected by it in connection with the provision of the Adwords Program. 27. As per the service level agreement - Exhibit C to distribution agreement, assessee distributor shall be solely responsible for M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. providing all customer services to Advertisers, according to the procedures, and in compliance with standards, provided by Google. All Advertisers shall be instructed by Distributor to contact Distributor directly for support, and not to communicate directly with Google Ireland. Distributor agrees that it shall provide minimum levels of service like Business hours phone support to all Advertisers, E-mail queries from Advertisers shall be responded to within one (l) business day with immediate resolution of any issues when possible. It was decided that the issues that cannot immediately be resolved by Distributor based on training and procedures provided under the Agreement must be communicated promptly to Google Ireland by Distributor / assessee, and Google ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 99 of 126 Ireland will assist assessee / Distributor in determining the best solution. It was also agreed that the distributor agrees that Google Ireland will have the right, to review samples of communications sent to Advertisers to assess the quality of responses and modify communications accordingly. Google Ireland shall also have the right to send questionnaires to Distributor's customers to ensure that Distributor is providing an adequate level of service. 28. As per the standard Advertising program terms, the advertiser is solely responsible for all ad targeting options, keywords and all ad content. The advertiser represents and warrants that it holds and hereby grants Google and Partners all rights (including without limitation any copyright, trademark, patent, publicity or other rights) in Creative, Services and Targets needed for Google and Partner to operate Google's advertising programs for Customer (including without limitation any rights needed to host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, reformat, excerpt, analyze, and create algorithms from and derivative works of Creative or Targets) in connection with this Agreement ("Use"). The advertiser represents and warrants that (y) all Customer information is complete, correct and current; and (z) any Use hereunder and Customer's Creative, Targets, and Customer's Services will not violate or encourage violation of any applicable laws, regulations, code of conduct, or third party rights (including, without limitation, intellectual property rights). Violation of the foregoing may result in immediate termination of this Agreement or customer's account without notice and may subject Customer to legal penalties and consequences. 29. As per the services agreement, the assessee was providing information and information technology enabled services to Google M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. Ireland. As regards ownership of intellectual property and ownership of derivate works, it was agreed that all intellectual property shall remain the exclusive property of Google Ireland. The confidential information provided by Google Ireland was to be employed by the assessee in performance of its services under the agreement and it shall remain the sole property of the Google Ireland. The statements recorded from the employees also confirms that the confidential information, software technology and the training documents for providing services under the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 100 of 126 services agreement are provided by Google Ireland to the assessee. 30. On a consideration of all the above agreements and the facts on record, we find that none of the rights as per section 14(a)/(b) and section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 have been transferred by Google Ireland to the assessee in the present case. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. CIT & Anr. (supra), mere use of or right to use a computer program without any transfer of underlying copyright in it as per section 14(a)/(b) or section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 will not be satisfying the definition of Royalty under the Act / DTAA. Similarly, use of confidential information, software technology, training documents and others are all 'literary work' with copyrights in it owned by the foreign entity and there was no transfer or license of copyrights in favour of the assessee company. Hence, the impugned payments cannot be characterised as 'Royalty' under the DTAA. 31. The lower authorities have held that the assessee has been granted the use of or right to use trademarks, other brand features and the process owned by Google Ireland for the purpose of distribution of Adwords program and consequently the sums payable to Google Ireland are royalty. As per Article 12 of India - Ireland DTAA, consideration for the use of or right to use any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process is regarded as royalty. In the present case, as per the distribution agreement, "Google Brand Features" means the Google trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features, with some but not all examples at "http://www.google.com/permissions/trademarks. html" (or such other URL that Google may provide from time to time), and such other trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, or other distinctive brand features that Google may provide to Distributor for use solely under this M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. Agreement. As per para 6 of the distribution agreement, each party shall own all right, title and interest, including without limitation all Intellectual Property Rights, relating to its Brand Features and Google Irland grants to the assessee / distributor nonexclusive and nonsublicensable licence during the Term to display Google Brand Features solely for the purpose of distributor's marketing and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 101 of 126 distribution of AdWords Program under the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. It is thus evident that the trademark and other brand features are not used independently or de hors the distribution agreement but they are incidental or ancillary for the purpose of carrying out the marketing and distribution of Adword program. The Delhi High Court in DIT v Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267 held that when the use of trade mark, trade name etc are incidental to the main service of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and further when there is no consideration payable for such use of trade mark, trade name etc, the consideration cannot be characterised as royalty. Applying the said principle, in the present case, use of Google Brand Features etc are de hors any consideration payable to Google Ireland and further they are incidental and ancillary for achieving the main purpose of marketing and distributing the Google Adwords Program. Hence, the lower authorities were not right in treating the payments as Royalty. 32. As regards the applicability of 'use of or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment" the CIT(A) held that the assessee cannot be said to have gained right to use any scientific equipment, since, Google Ireland has not parted with the copyright it holds in the Adwords program and hence it cannot be said that any kind of technical knowhow has been transferred to the assessee company. The CIT(A) was not in agreement with the AO on the above issue without prejudice to his view in holding that the remitted amount is royalty on different grounds. The revenue has not challenged the said finding of CIT(A). Hence, the impugned payments cannot be regarded as made for 'use of or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment'. The remaining portion of definition of 'Royalty' under the India - Ireland DT AA is consideration for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The AO has not characterised the impugned payments as a consideration for the above. In any case, CIT(A) has given a finding that it cannot be said that any kind of technical knowhow has been transferred to the assessee company. This has not been challenged by the revenue. M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. 33. Thus on an overall analysis of the entire facts on record, we hold that the impugned payments cannot be ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 102 of 126 regarded as royalty under the India - Ireland DTAA. It is true that the Google Adword program was commercially and profitably exploited in a commercial sense and profitable manner in India to generate revenues from Indian customers or advertisers. This is the business or commercial aspect of the transaction. However, the stand of the lower authorities that the impugned payments are in the nature of Royalty cannot be upheld especially under Article 12 of the India - Ireland DTAA merely because the marketing, distribution and ITES activities are carried out in India and revenues are generated from India or from Indian Advertisers. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, at page 763: "We are unable to agree with the submissions that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perceived by the respondents." 34. Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the taxability with respect to payments made for purchase of online advertisement has been decided by the following Co-ordinate Bench orders of the I.T.Act:- (i) Yahoo (supra): Department of Tourism of India hired the services of Yahoo India for uploading, displaying, and hosting its banner advertisement on the Yahoo portal, which was operated by Yahoo Hong Kong. For the said purposes Yahoo India engaged Yahoo Hong Kong for uploading and displaying the said banner advertisement. Pursuant to such arrangement, Yahoo India received consideration from Department of Tourism of India and after retaining its margin, the balance was remitted to Yahoo Hong Kong. The payment remitted by Yahoo India to Yahoo Hong Kong was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal. The AO as well as CIT(A) held such payments to be royalty and in that manner, disallowed the expenditure in the hands of Yahoo India under section 40(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, in second appeal, held that banner advertisement hosting services did not involve use or right to use any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment and no such use was granted by Yahoo Hong Kong. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the AO and CIT(A), wherein the subject payments were characterised as royalty. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 103 of 126 (ii) Pinstorm (supra): Pinstorm was engaged in buying online advertisement space for onward re-sale to an advertiser, much like GIPL in the present case. For such purpose, Pinstorm made payments to GIL, which were disallowed by the AO and CIT(A) under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the premise that the said payments were taxable in India. While the AO held the said payments to be fees for technical services ("FTS"), the M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. CIT(A) held them to be royalty. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra) to delete the disallowance. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the said payments were business profits, which were not taxable in India, since GIL did not have a PE in India. (iii) Right Florists (supra): Right Florist was a florist who used Google Search Engine for online advertising, to generate more business for itself. In this case again, the AO had disallowed the payments made by Right Florist for online advertising under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) reversed the said decision on the ground that none of the recipients of the payments had a PE in India. The Tribunal, in Department's appeal, upheld the order of the CIT(A), while observing that the decisions in Yahoo (supra) and Pinstorm (supra) were authorities in support of the proposition that payment by the Indian arm of a foreign owner of search engine portal, in connection with online advertising, is not in the nature of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. In this decision, the Tribunal also discussed the modalities involved in the online advertising business, in the context of Google Search Engine. (iv) Inception Business (supra): In this case the assessee was engaged in the business of brand management as well as posting advertisements in the social portal on behalf of their clients. The AO held the payments made by it for that purpose to Facebook Ireland Ltd., a non- resident, to be taxable in India. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra), Right Florists (supra), while setting aside the order of the AO/ CIT(A) and holding that the payments for purchase of online advertisement space were not taxable in India. (v) Urban Ladder (supra): The assessee in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO held the said payments to be royalty. The CIT(A) ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 104 of 126 upheld the order of the AO. However, while doing so, the CIT(A) relied upon certain functional aspects of advertisement system qua Patent Number US20040059708A1 as well as US7778872B2. These two patents are held by Google LLC., USA in connection with the Google AdWords Program hereto. The Tribunal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis (supra). The Hon'ble Tribunal also relied on the decisions in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra) and Right Florists (supra). (vi) Myntra Designs (supra): Myntra in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO held the said payments to be royalty and in the alternate, as FTS. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while setting aside the order of the CIT(A). (vii) Play Games (supra): Play games is engaged in the business of providing a platform for online gaming. It had made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO and CIT(A) in this case as well, held that payments to be taxable in India. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that Play Games did not get any right to modify/ deal M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. with the servers, which belonged to Facebook Ireland Ltd., in any manner. It was also observed inter alia that the said servers, which hosted online advertisements, were located outside India and that Facebook Ireland Ltd. did not have a PE in India. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held the payments in question to be neither royalty, nor FTS. (viii) Matrimony.com (supra): Matrimony.com in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO in this case as well, disallowed the said payments under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which action was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while deleting the said disallowance. (ix) ESPN Digital Media (supra): ESPN India in this case, entered into a re-seller agreement with ESPN UK, for the resale of online advertisement space. In terms thereof, ESPN India purchased online advertisement space for re- sale to Indian advertisers. For this purchase, it made payments to ESPN UK, which were characterised as royalty by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 105 of 126 The Tribunal, in second appeal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while observing that ESPN India was merely making payment under the re-seller agreement towards purchase of online advertisement space. It was also observed that a website is not a tangible property and is certainly not a high-tech equipment. It was also observed that the reliance of the AO and CIT(A) on the decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO, (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Madras High Court) was misplaced, since the same had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Engineering Analysis (supra). (x) Interactive Avenues (supra): Interactive Avenues is an internet advertising agency, which places online advertisements on behalf of its clients. The payments in this case were made to Facebook Ireland Ltd., which were disallowed by the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that Interactive Avenues was utilising Google Search Engine amongst others, to buy online advertisement space on behalf of its clients. Be that as it may, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held that the payments in question could not be characterised as royalty, while relying on the decisions in Urban Ladder (supra) and Play Games (supra). 35. It is also relevant to point out that in the context of interpreting Article 12(3) of India - Ireland DTAA, it is relevant to take note of the existing international jurisprudence. The Technical Advisory Group ("TAG") set up by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), in its Report (2001) on treaty characterisation of electronic commerce payments analysed various e-commerce transactions and suggested suitable characterisation for consideration flowing thereunder. One of the transactions analysed by TAG was advertising. In the context of online advertisements, including advertisements where the payment is based on number of clicks (i.e., CPC basis), TAG recommended M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. taxability of such payments under Article 7 of the relevant DTAA. The said Article 7 deals with "business profits" and not royalty. Business profits under Article 7 are taxable only where the non- resident has a PE in India. 36. It is important to note that TAG was set up by OECD and its recommendation on changes to the OECD commentary were accepted by OECD. As per the recent ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 106 of 126 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis, (supra), OECD commentary is a necessary aid for the interpretation of provisions contained in DTAA. In fact, the High-Powered Committee ("HPC") on electronic commerce and taxation, set up by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") had also accepted the view taken by TAG and recommended taxing consideration flowing for online advertisement under Article 7, and not Article 12 of the relevant DTAA. 37. Therefore, in terms of the international guidance as stated herein, the position regarding taxability of receipts from sale of online advertisement space is clear. Unless the non-resident, who is engaged in sale of online advertisement space, has a PE in India, no portion of receipts earned by it from sale of online advertisement space in India can be brought to tax in India as Act read with the relevant DTAA. 38. The above view is also supported by insertion of provisions related to Equalisation Levy (EL) by Finance Act, 2016. The root for the emergence of the EL can be traced to the dynamic business models that have the ability to transcend the link between an income producing activity and a specific location since these business are carried in the cyber place. The PE definition presently is based upon the physical presence criteria. The new business models also created challenges in characterizing the nature of payment - whether the payment is for services or for any IPR and hence royalty or whether it represents pure business profits. Various ITAT decisions, as discussed above, have held that income from sale of advertisement space on a website is not taxable in India if there is no PE of the foreign enterprise in India. It was held that such income is not to be regarded as royalty or FTS. Such tax challenges is addressed by the introduction of EL. Section 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 provides for charge of EL at 6% on consideration for specified services. Section 164(i) of Finance Act, 2016 provides that "specified service" means online advertisement, any provision for digital advertising space or any other facility or M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. service for the purpose of online advertisement and includes any other service as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Thus, online advertisement is now covered under EL. If online advertisement was already covered under definition of ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 107 of 126 royalty, then bringing it as part of EL scheme would not arise. 39. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we hold that the impugned payment cannot be characterized as royalty under the India-Ireland DTAA. It is ordered accordingly. 40. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed." 9. In view of above order of Tribunal, where it is stated that the payment made by GIPL to GIL is not in the nature of Royalty or FTS under the Act and DTAA, a different treatment cannot taken in the hands of the payee, i.e. the assessee in the instant case. The contentions raised in the written submission of the learned D.R. has been addressed by the Tribunal in the payer's case i.e. GIPL (supra). Hence, we are not dealing with the same in this order. Therefore, we hold that a sum of Rs.42,57,53,347/- cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 10. As regards receipt of Rs.51,09,74,532/- on sale of advertisement space from Indian customers other than GIPL we find it is covered in favour of the assessee by the following orders of the Tribunal: - (i) Yahoo (supra): Department of Tourism of India hired the services of Yahoo India for uploading, displaying, and hosting its banner advertisement on the Yahoo portal, which was operated by Yahoo Hong Kong. For the said purposes Yahoo India engaged Yahoo Hong Kong for uploading and displaying the said banner advertisement. Pursuant to such arrangement, Yahoo India received consideration from Department of Tourism of India and after retaining its margin, the balance was remitted to Yahoo Hong Kong. The payment remitted by Yahoo India to Yahoo Hong Kong was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal. The AO as well as CIT(A) held such payments to be royalty and in that manner, disallowed the expenditure in the hands of Yahoo India under section 40(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, in second appeal, held that banner M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. advertisement hosting services did not involve use or right to use any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment and no such use was granted by Yahoo Hong Kong. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the AO and CIT(A), wherein the subject payments were characterised as royalty. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 108 of 126 (ii) Pinstorm (supra): Pinstorm was engaged in buying online advertisement space for onward re-sale to an advertiser, much like GIPL in the present case. For such purpose, Pinstorm made payments to GIL, which were disallowed by the AO and CIT(A) under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the premise that the said payments were taxable in India. While the AO held the said payments to be fees for technical services ("FTS"), the CIT(A) held them to be royalty. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra) to delete the disallowance. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the said payments were business profits, which were not taxable in India, since GIL did not have a PE in India. (iii) Right Florists (supra): Right Florist was a florist who used Google Search Engine for online advertising, to generate more business for itself. In this case again, the AO had disallowed the payments made by Right Florist for online advertising under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) reversed the said decision on the ground that none of the recipients of the payments had a PE in India. The Tribunal, in Department's appeal, upheld the order of the CIT(A), while observing that the decisions in Yahoo (supra) and Pinstorm (supra) were authorities in support of the proposition that payment by the Indian arm of a foreign owner of search engine portal, in connection with online advertising, is not in the nature of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. In this decision, the Tribunal also discussed the modalities involved in the online advertising business, in the context of Google Search Engine. (iv) Inception Business (supra): In this case the assessee was engaged in the business of brand management as well as posting advertisements in the social portal on behalf of their clients. The AO held the payments made by it for that purpose to Facebook Ireland Ltd., a non-resident, to be taxable in India. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra), Right Florists (supra), while setting aside the order of the AO/ CIT(A) and holding that the payments for purchase of online advertisement space were not taxable in India. (v) Urban Ladder (supra): The assessee in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 109 of 126 held the said payments to be royalty. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. However, while doing so, the CIT(A) relied upon certain functional aspects of advertisement system qua Patent Number US20040059708A1 as well as US7778872B2. These two patents are held by Google LLC., USA in connection with the Google AdWords Program hereto. The Tribunal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis (supra). The Hon'ble Tribunal also relied on the decisions in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra) and Right Florists (supra). (vi) Myntra Designs (supra): Myntra in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO held the said payments to be royalty and in the alternate, as FTS. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while setting aside the order of the CIT(A). (vii) Play Games (supra): Play games is engaged in the business of providing a platform for online gaming. It had made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO and CIT(A) in this case as well, held that payments to be taxable in India. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that Play Games did not get any right to modify/ deal with the servers, which belonged to Facebook Ireland Ltd., in any manner. It was also observed inter alia that the said servers, which hosted online advertisements, were located outside India and that Facebook Ireland Ltd. did not have a PE in India. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held the payments in question to be neither royalty, nor FTS. (viii) Matrimony.com (supra): Matrimony.com in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO in this case as well, disallowed the said payments under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which action was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while deleting the said disallowance. (ix) ESPN Digital Media (supra): ESPN India in this case, entered into a re-seller agreement with ESPN UK, for the resale of online advertisement space. In terms thereof, ESPN India purchased online advertisement space for re- sale to Indian advertisers. For this purchase, it made payments to ESPN UK, which were characterised as royalty by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal, in second appeal, set aside the order of the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 110 of 126 CIT(A), while observing that ESPN India was merely making payment under the re- seller agreement towards purchase of online advertisement space. It was also observed that a website is not a tangible property and is M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. certainly not a high-tech equipment. It was also observed that the reliance of the AO and CIT(A) on the decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO, (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Madras High Court) was misplaced, since the same had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Engineering Analysis (supra). (x) Interactive Avenues (supra): Interactive Avenues is an internet advertising agency, which places online advertisements on behalf of its clients. The payments in this case were made to Facebook Ireland Ltd., which were disallowed by the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that Interactive Avenues was utilising Google Search Engine amongst others, to buy online advertisement space on behalf of its clients. Be that as it may, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held that the payments in question could not be characterised as royalty, while relying on the decisions in Urban Ladder (supra) and Play Games (supra)” 7.3 The Ld. DR on the contrary has relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. 7.3.1 Respectfully following the view taken by the Coordinate Benches in assessee’s own case, relied upon hereinabove, we hold the payment towards on online advertisement paid by assessee to Google Ireland is not liable to be taxed as Royalty for the years under consideration and therefore no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(i). ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 111 of 126 7.4 Regarding applicability of FTS provisions, this Bench had called for submissions from the ld. A.R., which was submitted and is placed on record. In respect of the applicability of FTS under the Act as well as DTAA, it was submitted that the issue of FTS arises only for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13. It is submitted that the FTS is defined under Article 12(3)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland ("India — Ireland Tax Treaty"), as under: "The term 'fees for technical services" means payment of any kind in consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services including the provision of services by technical or other personnel but does not include payments for services mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 of this Convention." 7.5 It is submitted that the definition of FTS under the Act and India-Ireland tax treaty is identically worded and therefore in order to fall within the scope of FTS, the consideration paid ought to be for rendition of managerial or technical or consultancy services. 7.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO in passing the draft assessment order has observed and held as under: “Similarly, payments made to M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. are also liable to be taxed either as royalties or Fees for technical services. For this purpose, there is no need to establish the PE of the recipient in India. It is abundantly clear as per Article 12 of DTAA whereby such royalties and fees for technical services have been defined in great detail. Google has been a search engine which has provided an online solution for all kinds of Internet based queries. It has almost created a revolution on account of its ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 112 of 126 patented search engine technology, established business processes and technological prowess, in offering search results under one web address for anything and everything available on the Internet. This marvelous search engine is a patent with a trade mark and is a design of great value and is a process of great value proposition. Google offers its servers and database for conducting the business from India to the assessee concern. Google also provides certain technical services on account of its technical consultancy services by offering the best solution online for any available problem. Considering the totality of reasons as above, it is seen that the amount paid to M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. of Rs.570,74,19,173 are also attracted under Article 12 of DTAA and it is liable for TDS u/s. 195 of the Income Tax Ad. The failure on the part of the assessee to make TDS is liable for disallowance u/s. 400)(0 of the Income Tax Act . This is alternatively ordered in addition to the revenue's contention that the amount payable to Google Ireland Ltd is taxable as business profits in India.” 7.6.1 The above observation has been reproduced from the draft assessment order passed for A.Y. 2012-13. Similar is the observations for A.Y. 2010-11 (paras 30 & 31 of the draft assessment order) and for A.Y. 2011-12 (para 30 of the draft assessment order). 7.7. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO initiated proceeding to tax the payments made by assessee to be Royalty / FTS under Article 12 of DTAA of India Ireland Treaty and/or business profits of Google Ireland and has held to be taxable in India, by holding assessee to be a dependent agent PE of Google Ireland. 7.8 He submitted that the DRP while dealing with the issue followed the directions of its predecessors for A.Y. 2009-10, to hold the payments to be in the nature of FTS. However, the Ld. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 113 of 126 Counsel submitted that, the entire discussions by the DRP is based on characterising the said payment to be in the nature of royalty. 7.9 The Ld. Counsel while arguing against the said payment to be in the nature of FTS, submitted that, in case of certain payees as observed by the Coordinate Bench while considering the issue in the hands of Google Ireland in ITA No. 2845/Bang/2017 vide order dated 28.2.2023 held the payments to be in the nature of business profits. However, this Tribunal further held that as there is no PE, that is established in India of the Google Ireland, such payment could not have been held to be taxable in India. 7.10 The Ld.Counsel referred to the reliance placed by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding the issue in case of Google Ireland Ltd. (supra) (which already has been reproduced hereinabove). For the sake of reference and at the cost of repetition, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “10. As regards receipt of Rs.51,09,74,532/- on sale of advertisement space from Indian customers other than GIPL we find it is covered in favour of the assessee by the following orders of the Tribunal: - (i) Yahoo (supra): Department of Tourism of India hired the services of Yahoo India for uploading, displaying, and hosting its banner advertisement on the Yahoo portal, which was operated by Yahoo Hong Kong. For the said purposes Yahoo India engaged Yahoo Hong Kong for uploading and displaying the said banner advertisement. Pursuant to such arrangement, Yahoo India received consideration from Department of Tourism of India and after retaining its margin, the balance was remitted to Yahoo Hong Kong. The payment remitted by Yahoo India to Yahoo Hong Kong was the subject matter of dispute ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 114 of 126 before the Tribunal. The AO as well as CIT(A) held such payments to be royalty and in that manner, disallowed the expenditure in the hands of Yahoo India under section 40(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, in second appeal, held that banner M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. advertisement hosting services did not involve use or right to use any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment and no such use was granted by Yahoo Hong Kong. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the AO and CIT(A), wherein the subject payments were characterised as royalty. (ii) Pinstorm (supra): Pinstorm was engaged in buying online advertisement space for onward re-sale to an advertiser, much like GIPL in the present case. For such purpose, Pinstorm made payments to GIL, which were disallowed by the AO and CIT(A) under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the premise that the said payments were taxable in India. While the AO held the said payments to be fees for technical services ("FTS"), the CIT(A) held them to be royalty. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra) to delete the disallowance. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the said payments were business profits, which were not taxable in India, since GIL did not have a PE in India. (iii) Right Florists (supra): Right Florist was a florist who used Google Search Engine for online advertising, to generate more business for itself. In this case again, the AO had disallowed the payments made by Right Florist for online advertising under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) reversed the said decision on the ground that none of the recipients of the payments had a PE in India. The Tribunal, in Department's appeal, upheld the order of the CIT(A), while observing that the decisions in Yahoo (supra) and Pinstorm (supra) were authorities in support of the proposition that payment by the Indian arm of a foreign owner of search engine portal, in connection with online advertising, is not in the nature of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. In this decision, the Tribunal also discussed the modalities involved in the online advertising business, in the context of Google Search Engine. (iv) Inception Business (supra): In this case the assessee was engaged in the business of brand management as well as posting advertisements in the social portal on behalf of their clients. The AO held the payments made by ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 115 of 126 it for that purpose to Facebook Ireland Ltd., a non-resident, to be taxable in India. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra), Right Florists (supra), while setting aside the order of the AO/ CIT(A) and holding that the payments for purchase of online advertisement space were not taxable in India. (v) Urban Ladder (supra): The assessee in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. held the said payments to be royalty. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. However, while doing so, the CIT(A) relied upon certain functional aspects of advertisement system qua Patent Number US20040059708A1 as well as US7778872B2. These two patents are held by Google LLC., USA in connection with the Google AdWords Program hereto. The Tribunal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis (supra). The Hon'ble Tribunal also relied on the decisions in Yahoo (supra), Pinstorm (supra) and Right Florists (supra). (vi) Myntra Designs (supra): Myntra in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd., for online advertising. The AO held the said payments to be royalty and in the alternate, as FTS. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal followed the decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while setting aside the order of the CIT(A). (vii) Play Games (supra): Play games is engaged in the business of providing a platform for online gaming. It had made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO and CIT(A) in this case as well, held that payments to be taxable in India. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that Play Games did not get any right to modify/ deal with the servers, which belonged to Facebook Ireland Ltd., in any manner. It was also observed inter alia that the said servers, which hosted online advertisements, were located outside India and that Facebook Ireland Ltd. did not have a PE in India. In that manner, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held the payments in question to be neither royalty, nor FTS. (viii) Matrimony.com (supra): Matrimony.com in this case, made payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. for online advertising. The AO in this case as well, disallowed the said payments under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which action was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal followed the ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 116 of 126 decision in Urban Ladder (supra), while deleting the said disallowance. (ix) ESPN Digital Media (supra): ESPN India in this case, entered into a re-seller agreement with ESPN UK, for the resale of online advertisement space. In terms thereof, ESPN India purchased online advertisement space for re- sale to Indian advertisers. For this purchase, it made payments to ESPN UK, which were characterised as royalty by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The Tribunal, in second appeal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), while observing that ESPN India was merely making payment under the re- seller agreement towards purchase of online advertisement space. It was also observed that a website is not a tangible property and is M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. certainly not a high-tech equipment. It was also observed that the reliance of the AO and CIT(A) on the decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO, (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Madras High Court) was misplaced, since the same had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Engineering Analysis (supra). (x) Interactive Avenues (supra): Interactive Avenues is an internet advertising agency, which places online advertisements on behalf of its clients. The payments in this case were made to Facebook Ireland Ltd., which were disallowed by the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that Interactive Avenues was utilising Google Search Engine amongst others, to buy online advertisement space on behalf of its clients. Be that as it may, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held that the payments in question could not be characterised as royalty, while relying on the decisions in Urban Ladder (supra) and Play Games (supra)” 7.11 He thus submitted that the Google AdWords Program is a standard facility for display of online advertisements on web properties, like the Google search engine, provided to those who pay for it and in that manner, it is not a custom-made and the amount paid / payable in lieu thereof, does not partake the character of FTS. Reliance was also placed on the decision in ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 117 of 126 Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2001) 119 Taxman 496 (Madras High Court). 7.12. It is the submission of the Ld.Counsel that, the revenue has not made out a specific case for the payments to be in the nature of FTS and that the revenue has not alleged the payments to be in the nature of FTS. He once again relied on para 19 of Coordinate Bench of this decision in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 374/Bang/2013 wherein this Tribunal observed as under: “19. Now coming to main issue of disallowance of distribution fee u/s.40(a)(i), we notice that the basis on which the revenue has made the disallowance is that the assessee is the DAPE of GIL. The alternative ground of the revenue is that the payment is being in the nature of Royalty / FTS. We notice that the issue of taxing the distribution fees by treating the same as Royalty / FTS has already settled in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case from the perspective of applicability of provisions of section 201 and accordingly there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) on this count. Therefore we in this order will restrict our adjudication to whether the assessee is the DAPE of GIL and whether the assessee is required to deduct tax at source u/s.195 on the impugned payments accordingly.” 7.13 On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. 7.14 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. After considering the plethora of decisions, in assessee’s own case as well as in the case of the payee being Google Ireland, we do not find that a case has been made out by the revenue to categorise the amounts paid by assessee to Google Ireland to be ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 118 of 126 FTS. Further, it is also held that the assessee is not a dependent agent PE of Google Ireland in order to bring to tax the business profits of Google Ireland in India. Nothing contrary to the observations of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has been brought to our notice. Respectfully following the above, we hold that the payments paid by the assessee to Google Ireland cannot be treated as FTS and therefore no disallowance could have been made u/s. 40(a)(i). Accordingly, this issue for the years under consideration stands allowed in favour of the assessee. 8. Issue 6: Attribution As we have already held while considering Issue 4 that assessee cannot be held to be a dependent agent permanent establishment of Google Ireland, the income earned by Google Ireland cannot be taxed in India as business profits. Under such circumstances, the issue of attribution does not arise and becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds pertaining to this issue for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 stands dismissed as infructuous. 9. Issue 7: 80G The Ld.Counsel submitted that this issue arises only for A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the Ld.AO denied deduction of eligible donation u/s. 80G of the act amounting to Rs.1,63,12,282/- incurred by assessee as a part of CSR. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee made donations to eligible educational institutions and medical research institutions for which ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 119 of 126 deduction u/s. 80G of the act are available as per the relevant provisions. 9.1 The Ld.Counsel submitted that, Ld. AO concluded the donations made by the assessee were not voluntary, and hence cannot be considered as donations, and therefore did not treat the donations made by the assessee for the purposes of section 80G. The Ld.Counsel submitted that this issue has been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of First American India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1762/Bang/2019 by order dated 29.4.2020, wherein an identical situation arises and this Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions of the act held and observed as under: “We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 11. Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 requires companies with CSR obligations, with effect from 01/04/2014. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted new Explanation 2 to subsection (1) of section 37, so as to clarify that for purposes of subsection (1) of section 37, any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession. 12. This amendment will take effect from 1/04/2015 and will, accordingly, apply to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. 13. Thus, CSR expenditure is to be disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head ‘Income form Business and Profession’. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 120 of 126 "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Act, shall be allowed if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business or profession. As the CSR expenditure (being an application of income) is not incurred for the purposes of carrying on business, such expenditure cannot be allowed under the existing provisions of section 37 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in order to provide certainty on this issue, it is proposed to clarify that for the purposes of section 37(1) any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment of conditions, if any, specified therein." 14. From the above it is clear that under Income tax Act, certain provisions explicitly state that deductions for expenditure would be allowed while computing income under the head, ‘Income from Business and Profession” to those, who pursue corporate social responsibility projects under following sections. • Section 30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. • Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of • plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 121 of 126 fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In- house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. • Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute the flagship mission of the present Government. • Section 36 provides deduction regarding insurance premium on stock, health of employees, loans or commission for employees, interest on borrowed capital, employer contribution to provident fund, gratuity and payment of security transaction tax. Income Tax Act, under section 80G, forming part of Chapter VIA, provides for deductions for computing taxable income as under: • Section 80G(2) provides for sums expended by an assessee as donations against which deduction is available. a) Certain donations, give 100% deduction, without any qualifying limit like Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, National Defence Fund, National Illness Assistance Fund etc., specified under section 80G(1)(i) b) Donations with 50% deduction are also available under Section 80G for all those sums that do not fall under section 80G(1)(i). Under Section 80G(2) (iiihk) and (iiihl) there are specific exclusion of certain payments, that are part of CSR responsibility, not eligible for deduction u/s80G. 15. In our view, expenditure incurred under section 30 to 36 are claimed while computing income under the head, ‘Income form Business and Profession”, where as monies spent under section 80G are claimed while computing “Total Taxable income” in the hands of assessee. The point of claim under these provisions are different. 16. Further, intention of legislature is very clear and unambiguous, since expenditure incurred under section 30 to 36 are excluded from Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as long as it satisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, “Income from Business and Profession”. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 122 of 126 17. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing “Total taxable income”. Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments( keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while computing, Income under the head, “Income form Business and Profession”. The effect of such disallowance would lead to increase in Business income. Thereafter benefit accruing to assessee under Chapter VIA for computing “Total Taxable Income” cannot be denied to assessee, subject to fulfillment of necessary conditions therein. 18. We therefore do not agree with arguments advanced by Ld.Sr.DR. 19. In present facts of case, Ld.AR submitted that all payments forming part of CSR does not form part of profit and loss account for computing Income under the head, “Income from Business and Profession”. It has been submitted that some payments forming part of CSR were claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act, for computing “Total taxable income”, which has been disallowed by authorities below. In our view, assessee cannot be denied the benefit of claim under Chapter VI A, which is considered for computing ‘Total Taxable Income”. If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 20. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G of the Act. We also note that authorities below have not verified nature of payments qualifying exemption under section 80G of the Act and quantum of eligibility as per section 80G(1) of the Act. 21. Under such circumstances, we are remitting the issue back to Ld.AO for verifying conditions necessary to claim deduction under section 80G of the Act. Assessee is directed to file all requisite details in order to substantiate its claim before Ld.AO. Ld.AO is then directed to grant deduction to the extent of eligibility. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 123 of 126 9.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. 9.3 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Nothing has been brought on record by the Ld.DR in order to establish that the donations made by assessee are not eligible for the deduction u/s. 80G. We therefore respectfully following the view taken by the Coordinate Bench hereinabove in case of First American India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) direct the Ld.AO to compute the deduction u/s. 80G of the act to the extent of eligibility as per the relevant provisions. Accordingly this issue is remanded to the Ld.AO with the above directions. The grounds raised by assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Issue 8: Representative assessee The Ld.Counsel submitted that this issue arises only for A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the assessee has been taxed as representative assessee of Google Ireland for the purposes of taxing the profits attributable to the dependent agent PE of Google Ireland. 10.1 While considering Issue no. 4 hereinabove, we have already held assessee is not a dependent agent PE of Google Ireland. Accordingly, this issue does not arise and the grounds raised by assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 stands allowed. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 124 of 126 11. Issue 9: Disallowance of expenses invoking the proviso to section 40(a)(i) of the act The Ld.Counsel submitted that this issue becomes academic at this stage by virtue of the decisions taken by this Tribunal while considering Issues 4 & 5 hereinabove. Accordingly, we are not inclined to decide this issue. 12. Issue 10: MAT Credit It is submitted by both sides that this requires verification based on the details filed by assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by assessee in respect of this issue for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2012- 13 are remanded to the Ld.AO for necessary verification. 13. Issue 11: TDS Credit It is submitted by both sides that this requires verification based on the details filed by assessee. Accordingly, this issue raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2015-16 are remanded to the Ld.AO for necessary verification. 14. Issue 12: Incorrect Refund Calculation It is submitted by both sides that this requires verification based on the details filed by assessee. Accordingly, this issue raised by assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 stands remanded to the Ld.AO for necessary verification. In respect of Issues 10 to 12, assessee is directed to file necessary documents in support and Ld. AO shall consider the claim in accordance with law. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 125 of 126 15. Issue 13: Educational cess The Ld.Counsel submitted that this issue is no longer resintegra and has been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court against the assessee. The additional ground therefore raised by assessee on this issue for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 is being not pressed. Accordingly, these additional grounds raised by assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 16. Issue 14: Interest u/s. 234B, 234D and initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). The Ld.Counsel submitted that these issues raised by assessee for the Assessment Years under consideration are consequential in nature and therefore do not require adjudication. In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under: Appeal No. Assessment Year Result IT(TP)A No. 68/Bang/2015 2010-11 Partly Allowed IT(TP)A No. 559/Bang/2016 2011-12 Partly Allowed IT(TP)A No. 387/Bang/2017 2012-13 Allowed IT(TP)A No. 2890/Bang/2017 2013-14 Allowed IT(TP)A No. 3430/Bang/2018 2014-15 Allowed IT(TP)A No. 2301/Bang/2019 2015-16 Allowed ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 126 of 126 The appeals filed by revenue for the years under consideration are disposed of as under: Appeal No. Assessment Year Result IT(TP)A No. 205/Bang/2015 2010-11 Dismissed as infructuous IT(TP)A No. 881/Bang/2016 2011-12 Dismissed as infructuous Order pronounced in the open court on 31 st July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31 st July, 2023. Vms/MS /VG/SPSs Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore