GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 3, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8743/MUM/2011 (AY: 2008-09) Global Cricket Corporation Pte. vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Ltd. (International Taxation), Range 3 C/o. SRBC & Associates LLP, 14th 1st Floor, Scindia House, NM Road, Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 038 Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028.

PAN/GIR No: AABCG 7951 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P. J. Pardiwala – Sr. Adv. (Virtually Present)/ Shri Jeet Kamdar & Ms. Asavari Kadam Revenue by Ms. Arju Garodia (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These two appeal emanates from the final assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Addl. DIT(IT) Range-3, Mumbai [in short, ‘AO’], dated 15.12.2010 for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09 pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai (DRP) vide order u/s 144C(5) dated 23.09.2011.

“Ground No 1

The learned Assessing Officer ('AO')/Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in law and in facts in holding that the benefits of India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ('India-Singapore Tax Treaty') are not 1 available even though the Appellant has filed the tax residency certificate issued by the Inland Revenue authorities of Singapore.

The Appellant prays that being a tax resident of Singapore, it is eligible to claim the benefits of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty

Ground No 2

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in holding that payments were not received by the Appellant in Singapore and accordingly limitation of relief under Article 24 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty is applicable to the Appellant and consequentially not granting India-Singapore Tax Treaty benefits to the Appellant.

The Appellant prays that Article 24 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty does not apply as it has remitted the monies received from International Cricket Council ('ICC') to its Singapore account on receipt and the payments were received by the Appellant outside Singapore only because of the contractual obligation imposed by ICC (ie apex cricketing body).

Ground No 3

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty without considering the decision of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Limited ('SET') in relation to the payments made to the Appellant wherein, it is held that the Limitation of Relief under Article 24(1) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty does not apply to the facts of the case and the Appellant is entitled to the benefits under the India-Singapore Tax Treaty

The Appellant prays that the judgment of the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be followed in determining the applicability of Article 24 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty in the Appellant's case.

Ground No 4

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in holding that payments made by SET to the Appellant are in the nature of 'Royalty' and deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence taxable in India.

The Appellant prays that the payments made by SET to the Appellant are not in the nature of 'Royalty' and not taxable in India in absence of a Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India. Without prejudice, the payments do not even deemed to arise in India as per Article 12(7) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty and hence, not taxable in India. Ground No 5

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in holding that the payments made by Satellite Television Asian Region Limited ('STARL') to the Appellant are in the nature of 'Royalty' and deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence taxable in India.

The Appellant prays that the payments made by STARL to the Appellant are not in the nature of 'Royalty' and not taxable in India in absence of a Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India. Without prejudice, the payments do not even deemed to arise in India as per Article 12(7) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty and hence, not taxable in India.

Ground No 6

The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in computing the taxable profits of the Appellant with respect to payments made by SET and STARL at the rate of 15 percent without considering the fact that the Appellant has incurred losses from its global operations.

The Appellant prays that in view of losses from its global operations, payments made by SET and STARL should not to be taxed in India.

Ground No 7

The learned AO has erroneously considered entire receipts by the Appellant from SET and STARL as 'income not offered to tax' instead of 15% of gross receipts as determined by the learned AO himself as income attributable to tax in India. The Appellant prays that in view of losses from its global operations, payments made by SET and STARL should not to be taxed in India.

Ground No 8

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in holding that payments made by SET are taxable in India without considering that in SET's case itself, in respect of these payments, the 'L' bench of the Mumbai Income 3 Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that payments made by SET to the Appellant are not taxable in India.

The Appellant prays that the judgment of the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be followed as on the same facts, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the said payments are not taxable in India.

Ground No 9

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in holding that payments made by Prasar Bharati (ie Broadcasting Corporation of India) to the Appellant are taxable in India as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.

The Appellant prays that the payments made by Prasar Bharati is not 'Royalties' and as such they are not taxable in India in absence of a Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India. Ground No 10

The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and in fact in holding that payments made by Prasar Bharati [ie All India Radio Broadcasting Corporation of India ('AIR')] to the Appellant are taxable in India as 'Royalty' under Section 9(i)(vi) of the Act.

The Appellant prays that payments made by AIR is not 'Royalties' and as such they are not taxable in India in absence of a Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India.

Ground No 11

The learned AO/ DRP has erred in law and in facts holding that the payments made by LG Electronics Private Limited ('LG'), Hero Honda Motors Private Limited (Hero Honda'), Hutchison Max Telecom Private Limited ('Hutch'), Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOC') and Star India Private Limited ('SIPL') to the Appellant are for the use of commercial equipment and accordingly taxable as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.

The Appellant prays that the payments made by LG, Hero Honda, Hutch, IOC and SIPL to the Appellant are not 'Royalty' and as such they are not taxable in India in absence of a Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India.

Ground No 12

The learned AO/ DRP has erred in holding that the payments made by LG, Hero Honda, Hutch, IOCL and SIPL to the Appellant are for the use of logos/ marks and accordingly taxable as 'Royalty'. The Appellant prays that the payments made by LG, Hero Honda, Hutch, IOC and SIPL to the Appellant are not 'Royalty' and as such they are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India.

Ground No 13

The learned AO/ DRP has erred in law and in fact in holding that interest under Section 234B of the Act is applicable in the case of Appellant.

The Appellant prays that provisions of Section 234B of the Act are not applicable in the case of the Appellant since the Appellant is not liable to pay advance tax under Section 208 of the Act.

The Appellant requests that the above grounds be decided on merits of the case.

The Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds, alter, amend or modify the aforesaid grounds at or before the hearing of the appeal to decide the appeal according to law.”

additional grounds are as under:

“Additional Ground No. 1:

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 15 December 2010 issued by the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed in violation of section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

grounds raised by the appellant. The grounds are legal and jurisdictional in nature.

The Hon’ble Supreme court in case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) has held

that the order of Tribunal u/s 254 is expressed in the widest possible terms. There

is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal u/s 254 only to decide the

grounds which arise from the order of the CIT (Appeals). Both the assessee as well

as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross objection before the

Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from

considering a question of law arising in the assessment proceedings although not

raised earlier. Undoubtedly the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not to

allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to

consider the question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the

assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be

allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to

correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. In the instant case, the additional

grounds emanate from the facts on record and no additional facts are needed to

decide the issue. Hence, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble

Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders PVt.

Ltd., 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), the additional grounds are admitted and will be decided

at the relevant place in this order.

AY 2008-09 on 30.09.2008, declaring total income at Rs.12,05,321/-. After

issuance of statutory notices u/s 143(3) and 142(1) of the Act and after hearing

the assessee, the AO passed draft order u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on

15.12.2010. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), in its order u/s 144C(5) dated

23.09.2011, directed the AO to give effect to the directions as per the provisions

of section 144C(13) of the Act. Following the direction of the DRP, the AO passed

order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 18.10.2011 by making various

additions and determined total income at Rs.2,04,29,17,831/-.

Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is fully

covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in

assessee’s own case for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in ITA Nos.2161

& 2162/Mum/2014 dated 30.06.2026. In the said appeal, the assessee had raised

similar additional ground which was admitted by the Tribunal. We have perused

the said order of the Tribunal and find that the additional ground has been

decided in favour of the appellant with the following observation:

“12….., we will deal with the issue raised in the second additional ground noted above. It is the case of the assessee before us that, though, the AO has referred to 7 orders dated 28.03.2013 for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07 as draft assessment orders, however, incidentally, he has passed final assessment orders, as, along with the assessment orders, the AO has issued income computation sheets computing the tax liability, demand notice u/s.156 of the Act and even has not only initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, but, in fact, has issued show cause notices u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Drawing our attention to the draft assessment orders, the income tax computation sheet, demand notice, and show-cause notices issued for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that these facts clearly demonstrate that in the garb of draft assessment orders, the AO essentially has passed the final assessment orders. Thus, he submitted, such action of the AO is in clear violation of the mandatory provisions contained u/s.144C(1) r.w.s sub-section (8) of the Act and other provisions of the said section. Thus, he submitted, the so- called draft assessment orders have to be declared as invalid and without jurisdiction. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: a) PCIT v. Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 265 (Telangana) (HC)

b) Marriott International Inc. v. DCIT (in ITA Nos. 1622 and 1623/Mum/2021 vide order dated 08.06.2026) 13. In response, ld. DR submitted that the issuance of computation sheet, demand notice and show-cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is through inadvertence and not because the AO has passed the final assessment orders as they do not contain demand and collection register (D2 CR no.). He submitted the defect, if any, in issuing the demand notice, computation sheet, and penalty show cause notice is a curable defect. 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. Factually, on 28.03.2013, the AO had framed the assessment orders for the impugned assessment year mentioning ‘draft assessment order’. The cause title of the assessment orders further demonstrate that they have been passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act. However, in the concluding part of the draft assessment order in A.Y. 2005-06, the AO has observed as under: “………….. Assessed u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) accordingly. Charge interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C, applicable as per the provisions of the IT Act. Give credit for taxes paid. Issue Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue D N and Challan accordingly.” 15. In assessment year 2006-07, the AO has made verbatim identical observations in the concluding part of the draft assessment order. Further, along with the draft assessment orders, the AO has issued income tax computation form computing the aggregate demand including interest levied under various provisions of the Act. 8 The demand notices issued u/s.156 of the Act not only mention the demand raised against the assessee, but directs the assessee to pay the demand within a period of 30 days. Even, the AO has issued notices u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, directing the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the AO, instead of framing draft assessment orders at the first instance proposing variation, if any, in terms with section 144C(1) of the Act, has essentially passed final assessment orders, not only computing the tax liability, but also issuing demand notices and has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging concealment of or furnishings of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, there is clear violation of the statutory mandate provided u/s.144C of the Act. While considering a dispute of identical nature, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in case of PCIT vs. Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held as under: ….. ….. ….. 16. As could be seen from the aforesaid observations of Hon’ble High Court, after referring to the decisions of various other Hon’ble High Courts, including Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Hon’ble Court has held that the very fact that along with the draft assessment order, the AO has issued a notice of demand and penalty notice, indicates that the AO has passed the final assessment order. In case of Marriott International Inc. v. DCIT (supra), the co-ordinate bench while deciding identical nature of dispute has held as under: ….. ….. ….. 17. Factually, there is no distinction between the cases discussed above and the present assessee’s case. Thus, respectfully following the judicial precedents referred to above, we hold that the so-called draft assessment orders passed by the AO are invalid and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in quashing the same. As a result, all subsequent proceedings in consequence thereof including the final assessment orders, will be invalid. Hence, these grounds are allowed.”

6.1 The facts of the present appeal and the additional ground raised by the

appellant are similar to those decided in the above cases of the appellant for AYs

2005-06 and 2006-07 by the Tribunal in ITA No.2161 & 2162/Mum/2014 (supra).

The appellant has also filed copies of the demand notices u/s 146 of the Act dated 9 15.12.2010 and 18.10.2011 along with the draft order dated 15.10.2010 and final

order dated 18.10.2011 respectively. Therefore, there is no distinction between

the cases of the assessee for the AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the present appeal.

Hence, following the above decision we hold that the draft assessment order by

the AO is invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the final order is also

invalid. Accordingly, the additional ground is allowed.

grounds raised by the assessee become academic in nature and do not require

adjudication.

Order is pronounced on 11.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 11.09.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI 10