Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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