Delhi High Court - Orders
Godaddy.Com Llc vs Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15023/2025
GODADDY.COM LLC
.....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai and Ms. Ishita
Nayak, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms. Monica
Benjamin and Ms. Easha, JSCs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
ORDER
% 26.09.2025 CM APPL. 61868/2025
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15023/2025, CM APPL. 61867/2025
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned Certificate dated 21.08.2025 & Order date 06.03.2025 rejecting the Petitioner's application on 10.04.2025 for grant of 'Nil' TDS certificate under Section 197 read with Section 195(3) of the Act filed by the Petitioner; b. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to issue fresh certificate under Section 197 read with Section 195(3) of the Act, for 'Nil' deduction of tax, within a period of 15 days from the date of the order of this Hon'ble High Court."
4. Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/10/2025 at 22:46:10 course of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment in favour of the petitioner's in its own case dated 11.12.2023, for the Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16, wherein this Court has in paragraph 15.2 onwards, held as under :
"15.2 A close perusal of the aforementioned Clause would show that what is agreed between the appellant/assessee and its customers is that mere registration of a domain name does not create any proprietorship rights in the name used as the domain name or in the domain name registration either in the appellant/assessee or the customers or even any other third party.
15.3 Therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant/assessee, i.e., that since it is not the domain name's owner, it cannot confer the right to use or transfer the right to use the domain name to another person/entity, deserves acceptance.
16. We are also of the view that passing off and injunction actions are entertained by the courts where domain name registrations are brought about in bad faith or to perpetuate fraud. The courts tend to grant injunctive relief where the defendant, in such actions, is seen to be feeding off the plaintiff's goodwill and causing confusion amongst its customers regarding the origin of the subject goods and services. Such reliefs are granted on the basis that the definition of the expression "mark"
includes a "name", and in turn, the expression "trademark" so defined to include a mark, distinguishes the goods and services of one person from those of others. Therefore it is possible in a given situation that a domain name may have the attributes of a trademark. [See Section 2m read with Section 2zb of Trademarks Act, 19991].
16.1 The Supreme Court, in Satyam Infoway, held that it is the registrant (and not the Registrar) who owns the domain name, and can protect its goodwill by initiating passing off action against a subsequent registrant of the same domain name/a deceptively similar domain name. The observations made in the following paragraphs of Satyam Infoway, being apposite, are extracted hereafter:
"What is important for the purposes of the present appeal is the protection given to intellectual property in domain names.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/10/2025 at 22:46:10 A prior registrant can protect its domain name against subsequent registrants. Confusing similarity in domain names may be a ground for complaint and similarity is to be decided on the possibility of deception amongst potential customers. The defences available to a compliant are also substantially similar to those available to an action for passing off under trademark law... What is also important is that the respondent admittedly adopted the mark after the appellant. The appellant is the prior user and has the right to debar the respondent from eating into the goodwill it may have built up in connection with the name..."
16.2 From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the Court in Satyam Infotech was concerned only with the rights of the domain name owner and not the Registrar, while determining whether passing off action can be initiated in relation to domain names. Given this position, the Tribunal's reliance on this judgment is misconceived.
16.3 In this case, however, we need not travel down this path, as the appellant/assessee is only acting as a Registrar and thus offering its services to its customers for having their domain names registered.
16.4 The aforementioned principle may have been attracted if the appellant/assessee had granted rights in or transferred the right to use its domain name, i.e., Godaddy.com, to a third person. Therefore, the fee received by the appellant/assessee for registration of domain names of third parties, i.e., its customers, cannot be treated as royalty.
17. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondent/revenue.
18. The appeals are accordingly allowed."
5. His submission is the respondents contrary to the determination by this Court, have now issued the impugned order for the Financial Year 2025- 26, deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by stating in paragraph 12 as under :
"12. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that the receipts are in the nature of Royalty/FTS as per provisions of the Act taxable @ 20% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) and as per provisions of the India-U.S. Tax Treaty taxable @ 15%.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/10/2025 at 22:46:10 Accordingly, the receipts are liable to tax @ 15%, being the rate which is more beneficial to the Applicant"
6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the judgment on which much reliance has been placed by Dr. Bajpai, has been proposed to be challenged before the Supreme Court. On a specific query whether the SLP has been filed and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr. Kumar seeks a week's time to take instructions.
7. At his request, renotify on 09.10.2025.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 ss This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/10/2025 at 22:46:10