A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Domain Name Registration Services Not Royalty: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of GoDaddy

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of GoDaddy, a leading US-based company, stating that income received for providing domain name registration services cannot be categorized as 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia, has far-reaching implications for the taxation of domain name registration services in India. The court's decision hinged on the fundamental distinction between the domain registrar and the domain name owner, highlighting that GoDaddy, in its role as a Registrar, does not have ownership rights over the registered domain names.

The court observed, "Mere registration of a domain name does not create any proprietary right for the Registrar or any other person in the name used as a domain name or the domain name registration." This crucial point emphasized that GoDaddy acts as an intermediary, facilitating domain name registrations for its customers.

Furthermore, the court rejected the comparison between domain names and trademarks, noting that domain names are created through a registration process and serve a different purpose. The judgment clarified that the fee received by GoDaddy for domain registration services does not involve the transfer of rights to use the domain names.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Satyam Infoway, which highlighted that domain name registrants, not Registrars like GoDaddy, own the domain names and can protect their rights through legal actions.

Delhi High Court's ruling establishes a clear distinction between domain name registration services and royalty, offering relief to GoDaddy and potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: December 11, 2023

GODADDY.COM LLC VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

 

Latest Legal News