JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J.- CM Nos. 3050 of 2015, 3052 of 2015, 3054 of 2015, 3056 of 2015, 3183 of 2015, 3185 of 2015, 3187 of 2015, 3189 of 2015, 3191 of 2015, 3193 of 2015, 3195 of 2015, 3197 of 2015, 3199 of 2015, 3201 of 2015, 3203 of 2015, 3205 of 2015, 3207 of 2015, 3209 of 2015, 3211 of 2015, 3213 of 2015, 3215 of 2015, 3217 of 2015, 3219 of 2015, 3221 of 2015, 3224 of 2015, 3226 of 2015, 3228 of 2015, 3230 of 2015, 3232 of 2015, 3234 of 2015, 3236 of 2015, 3481 of 2015, 3483 of 2015, 3485 of 2015, 3487 of 2015, 3489 of 2015 and 3536 of 2015. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. applications are disposed of. CM Nos. 3049 of 2015, 3051 of 2015, 3053 of 2015, 3055 of 2015, 3182 of 2015, 3184 of 2015, 3186 of 2015, 3188 of 2015, 3190 of 2015, 3192 of 2015, 3194 of 2015, 3196 of 2015, 3198 of 2015, 3200 of 2015, 3202 of 2015, 3204 of 2015, 3206 of 2015, 3208 of 2015, 3210 of 2015, 3212 of 2015, 3214 of 2015, 3216 of 2015, 3218 of 2015, 3220 of 2015, 3223 of 2015, 3225 of 2015, 3227 of 2015, 3229 of 2015, 3231 of 2015, 3233 of 2015, 3235 of 2015, 3480 of 2015, 3482 of 2015, 3484 of 2015, 3486 of 2015, 3488 of 2015, 3490 of 2015 and 3535 of 2015. Delay is condoned. Applications are disposed of. I. T. A. Nos. 119 of 2015, 120 of 2015, 121 of 2015, 122 of 2015, 123 of 2015, 124 of 2015, 125 of 2015, 126 of 2015, 127 of 2015, 128 of 2015, 129 of 2015, 130 of 2015, 131 of 2015, 132 of 2015, 133 of 2015, 134 of 2015, 135 of 2015, 136 of 2015, 137 of 2015, 138 of 2015, 139 of 2015, 140 of 2015, 141 of 2015, 142 of 2015, 144 of 2015, 145 of 2015, 146 of 2015, 147 of 2015, 148 of 2015, 149 of 2015, 150 of 2015, 151 of 2015, 152 of 2015, 153 of 2015, 154 of 2015, 155 of 2015, 156 of 2015 and 157 of 2015. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Prakash Kumar, advocate. Revenue claims to be aggrieved by order dated April 4, 2014 (since reported as Alcatel-Lucent France v. Asst. DIT [2014] 32 ITR (Trib) 1 (Delhi)), of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the ITAT") in several connected appeals preferred by it, all of which were rejected by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It argues that Incometax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not considering that income from supply of software embedded in hardware equipment or otherwise to customers in India amounts to royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of Income-tax Act and under article 13(3) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTTA) between India and France, Canada, Germany, China, etc. Reassessment proceedings were initiated for year under consideration. assessee claimed that income declared originally in assessment proceedings be treated as return filed in assessment proceedings. In reassessment order, Assessing Officer observed that assessee, company incorporated in France and other concerned countries used to manufacture, trade and supply equipment and services for GSM Cellular Radio Telephones Systems. assessee had supplied hardware and software to various entities in India. Software licenced by assessee embodies process which is required to control and manage specific set of activities involved in business use of its customers. Software also made available process to its customers, who used it to carry out their business activities. In this view of matter, Assessing Officer felt that consideration of supply of software amounted to royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of Income-tax Act. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-to whom assessee appealed and later Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to whom Revenue appealed concurrently held that supply of embedded software (which was part of hardware supplied to assessee's customers by it) under consideration did not constitute royalty and, therefore, section 9(1)(vi) was not attracted and for same reasons, article 13(3) of DTAA was not involved. We have noticed, at outset, that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had relied upon ruling of this court in DIT v. Ericsson A. B. [2012] 343 ITR 470 (Delhi), wherein identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of identical argument with respect to whether consideration paid towards supply of software along with hardware-rather software embedded in hardware amounted to royalty. After noticing several contentions of Revenue, this court held in Ericsson A. B. (supra) as follows (pages 498 to 500): "It is difficult to accept aforesaid submissions in facts of present case. We have already held above that assessee did not have any business connection in India. We have also held that supply of equipment in question was in nature of supply of goods. Therefore, this issue is to be examined keeping in view these findings. Moreover, another finding of fact is recorded by Tribunal that cellular operator did not acquire any of copyrights referred to in section 14(b) of Copyright Act, 1957. Once we proceed on basis of aforesaid factual findings, it is difficult to hold that payment made to assessee was in nature of royalty either under Income-tax Act or under DTAA. We have to keep in mind what was sold by assessee to Indian customers was GSM which consisted both of hardware as well as software, therefore, Tribunal is right in holding that it was not permissible for Revenue to assess same under two different articles. software that was loaded on hardware did not have any independent existence. software supply is integral part of GSM mobile telephone system and is used by cellular operator for providing cellular services to its customers. There could not be any independent use of such software. software is embodied in system and Revenue accepts that it could not be used independently. This software merely facilitates functioning of equipment and is integral part thereof. On these facts, it would be useful to refer to judgment of Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC), wherein apex court held that software which is incorporated on media would be goods and, therefore, liable to sales tax. following discussion in this behalf is required to be noted (pages 419 and 423): 'In our view, term "goods" as used in article 366(12) of Constitution of India and as defined under said Act are very wide and include all types of movable properties, whether those properties be tangible or intangible. We are in complete agreement with observations made by this court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [2001] 4 SCC 593; [2001] 124 STC 59 (SC). software programme may consist of various commands which enable computer to perform designated task. copyright in that programme may remain with originator of programme. But moment copies are made and marketed, it becomes goods, which are susceptible to sales tax. Even intellectual property, once it is put on to media, whether it be in form of books or canvas (in case of painting) or computer discs or cassettes, and marketed would become "goods". We see no difference between sale of software programme on CD/floppy disc from sale of music on cassette/CD or sale of film on video cassette/CD. In all such cases, intellectual property has been incorporated on media for purposes of transfer. Sale is not just of media which by itself has very little value. software and media cannot be split up. What buyer purchases and pays for is not disc or CD. As in case of paintings or books or music or films buyer is purchasing intellectual property and not media, i.e., paper or cassette or disc or CD. Thus, transaction sale of computer software is clearly sale of "goods" within meaning of term as defined in said Act. term "all materials, articles and commodities" includes both tangible and intangible/incorporeal property which is capable of abstraction, consumption and use and which can be transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored, possessed, etc. software programmes have all these attributes... In Advent Systems Ltd. v. Unisys Corpn (925 F. 2d 670 (3rd Cir. 1991)), relied on by Mr. Sorabjee, court was concerned with interpretation of uniform civil code which "applied to transactions in goods". goods therein were defined as "all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at time of identification for sale". It was held: "Computer programs are product of intellectual process, but once implanted in medium are widely distributed to computer owners. analogy can be drawn to compact disc recording of orchestral rendition. music is produced by artistry of musicians and in itself is not a'good,' but when transferred to laserreadable disc becomes readily merchantable commodity. Similarly, when professor delivers lecture, it is not good, but, when transcribed as book, it becomes good. That computer program may be transcribed as book, it becomes good. That computer program may be copyrightable as intellectual property does not alter fact that once in form of floppy disc or other medium, program is tangible, movable and available in market place. fact that some programs may be tailored for specific purposes need not alter their status as'goods' because Code definition includes'specially manufactured goods."' fortiori when assessee supplies software which is incorporated on CD, it has supplied tangible property and payment made by cellular operator for acquiring such property cannot be regarded as payment by way of royalty." This court also noticed that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had in addition relied upon other judgment of this court, i.e., DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2013] 358 ITR 259 (Delhi). In view of this settled position, this court is of opinion that no substantial question of law arises. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alcatel Lucent Canada