ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1403/MUM/2008Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 December 2025AY 2004-2005Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)42 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for granting a license for broadcasting cinematographic films, without transferring any copyright, does not fall within the definition of 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12(3) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. Therefore, the income is not taxable in India as royalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a foreign telecasting company, granted a non-exclusive license to an Indian entity for broadcasting 100 Hindi feature films for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000. The assessee claimed this income was not taxable in India as it was outside the definition of royalty and the transaction occurred outside India.

What were the issues?

Whether the income received by a foreign company for granting broadcasting rights of cinematographic films constitutes 'royalty' under the Indian Income Tax Act and the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 10.10.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.01.2007, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are as under: The Assessee, being a foreign telecasting company incorporated in Mauritius and having tax residency certificate of Mauritius , during the AY under consideration was engaged in the produc

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vi)

All 1,705 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →