ITAT Delhi Holds GoDaddy.com‘s Revenues Not Taxable in India as Royalty or FTS
Landmark Ruling: Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Holds GoDaddy.com’s Revenues Not Taxable in India as Royalty or FTS.
Let us have a Short Overview of the case:
Case Title: GoDaddy.com LLC vs. ACIT, Circle Intl. Tax – 1(3)(1), Delhi
Assessment Year: 2022–23
Citation: ITA No. 335/Del/2025 | Order dated: 30.04.2025
GoDaddy.com LLC, a U.S.-based ICANN-accredited domain registrar and global web services provider, earned ₹465.32 crores from Indian customers through domain name registration, web hosting, design, SSL certificates, and other digital services.
Revenue’s Stand:
Treated domain registration fees (₹260.75 Cr) as ‘royalty’ under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA.
Treated other service fees (₹204.56 Cr) as ‘fees for technical services (FTS)’ under Section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12(4).
Denied DTAA benefits citing GoDaddy’s status as a fiscally transparent LLC in the U.S., allegedly not a “resident” under Article 4 of the DTAA.
Assessee’s Argument:
Domain registration does not involve any transfer of rights or proprietary interest-thus, cannot be taxed as royalty.
Non-domain services are standard services, not technical in nature, and do not “make available” technical knowledge-hence, not taxable as FTS.
DTAA benefit is available as the assessee possesses a valid TRC and is liable to tax in the U.S., even if income is taxed in the hands of its members.
Hon’ble Tribunal’s Findings:
DTAA Eligibility: Upheld GoDaddy’s right to claim DTAA benefits, relying on its own and Wild West Domains LLC’s earlier rulings.
Domain Registration: Not ‘royalty’-no proprietary rights are transferred. Reiterated Hon’ble Delhi HC’s view in GoDaddy’s own case for AYs 2013-14 to 2015–16.
Non-Domain Services: Not taxable as FTS-do not satisfy “make available” test. Relied on precedents including Amazon Web Services Inc., Millennium Infocom, and Campus EAI India Pvt. Ltd.
A decisive win for cross-border digital service providers. This ruling underscores the importance of substance-over-form in DTAA interpretation and reinforces that mere access to automated digital services does not amount to ‘technical services’.
The copy of the order is as under:
