INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUP (UK) LIMITED,LONDON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.- 25/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2019-20] International Management Group Deputy Commissioner of Income (UK) Ltd., Tax, C/o International Merchandising Vs Circle -2(1)(1), International Company LLC, India Branch Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Officer, Vatika Business Suites No. Near Minto Road, 24, and 25, first India Place, New Delhi- 110002. Sushant Lok-1, Phase-1, Block-B, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122022. PAN- AABCI9309N Assessee Revenue Assessee by Ms. Shruti Khimta, AR & Shri Harmeet Singh, CA Revenue by Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Assessee is against the Final Assessment Order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the ACIT, Circle Int. Tax- 2(1)(1), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AO’) under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13), of the 1

IT(IT)A No.- 25/Del/2026 Interna�onal Management Group (UK) Ltd. Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (DRP) dated 07.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are reproduced as under: “ 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the order passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ("AO") under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act"), assessing the income of the Appellant at Rs. 16,70,80,982/- instead of returned income of Rs. 13,08,33,650/- is bad in law. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in not following the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the Assessee's own case in its favour for the preceding years. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in erred in not appreciating that the receipts of Rs. 3,62.47.332/-are effectively connected with the admitted PE and is accordingly to be taxed as business income, in view of the provisions of Article 13(6) of the India-UK DTAA. 4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that the balance receipts amounting to Rs. 3,62,47,332/- would partake character of fees for technical services as per the provisions of Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 5-That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in misconstruing the principle of make available as per Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA and accordingly, erred in holding that the receipts of the Appellant satisfies the make available principle and is to be taxed as FTS under the provisions of India-UK DTAA. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in not allowing credit of tax deducted at source ("TDS') amounting to INR 1,58,07,511/- whilst computing the tax liability of the Appellant for the year under consideration. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO has erred in in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 270A of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 2344, 234B and 234C of the Act.

IT(IT)A No.- 25/Del/2026 Interna�onal Management Group (UK) Ltd. Prayer: In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that the addition made by the Ld. AO may be ordered to be deleted. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

IT(IT)A No.- 25/Del/2026 Interna�onal Management Group (UK) Ltd. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that even though the assessee has entered into a new agreement with BCCI for execution / implementation of IPL events from 2018 till 2022, the services performed by the assessee were the same as under the earlier agreement. 5.1 He has further submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is also the same as in earlier years i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2018-19 and it has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s favour. 5.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for earlier years. We note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that balance receipts that are not attributable to the assessee’s Indian PE are not to be taxed as FTS on account of non-satisfaction of the ‘make available’ clause in the DTAA. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: “93. As we read Article 13(4)(c) of the DTAA, it becomes manifest that the mere furnishing of service would not suffice and a liability of tax would be triggered only if the technical or consultancy service were coupled with a transfer of the expertise itself. The expression " make available" must be construed as an enablement, conferral of knowledge and which would lead to the payer becoming skilled to perform those functions independently. The make available condition would be satisfied if the services rendered entails equipping the recipient with skill and evidencing an apparent conferment, alienation or transfer of skill, knowledge or know-how. This transfer of knowledge or skill is a pivotal factor in determining whether the consideration received can be classified as FTS. The "make available" stipulation ensures that only those services that impart lasting technical benefits are classifiable as FTS. It was on a consideration of the aforesaid that this Court in BioRad had held that the real test would be the transfer of technical knowledge, the knowledge and skills and expertise of the provider being absorbed by the payer and who would then have the capability to deploy that knowledge or skill without reference to the original provider. This reinforces our view that the make available condition would be satisfied only if the rendering of service involves a clear and demonstrable transfer of technical skills, expertise or know-how to the recipient. It must involve a transfer of capabilities and not just the temporary use of the provider's knowledge, expertise or skill. … ..

IT(IT)A No.- 25/Del/2026 Interna�onal Management Group (UK) Ltd. 99. On an overall consideration of all of the above, we come to the firm conclusion that there was no expertise, skill or know-how which could be said to have been made available to BCCI. The various functions which IMG was called upon to discharge was to be aided by the appellant drawing upon its expertise and special knowledge in the creation and conduct of leagues of the stature of the IPL. There was no discernible intent on the part of BCCI to absorb or internalise IMG's unique skills and knowledge in the curation of sporting leagues. No part of that knowledge or skill stood transferred to BCCI. Merely because research material would have been shared with BCCI or the service rendered by it been put to use and utilised cannot possibly lead one to conclude that the payer stood enabled or equipped with the special knowledge underlying the technical and consultancy service which was extended. 100. The fact that IMG was retained to perform all of the aforenoted functions for a period of ten years is yet another indicator of BCCI having not been enabled or made available the special knowledge and skill possessed by IMG. The continued provisioning and rendering of service over a substantial period of time were factors which were duly recognised by the Court in Bio Rad as well when it observed that the same would clearly detract from an assumption that technical or consultancy services had been made available. We also bear in consideration the undisputable fact that the contractual arrangement contemplated a continued engagement and ongoing reliance on IMG's expertise without any transfer of know-how or skills to BCCI. .. .. .. 125. We accordingly allow the present appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal. While we answer Question (i) in the negative and against the appellants, Questions (ii) and (iii) are answered in their favour. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief.” 5.3 Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for past years, we hold that the balance receipts of Rs. 3,62,47,332/- are not taxable as FTS and the addition made by the AO, on this count is hereby deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 05 .06.2026. Pooja. 5

IT(IT)A No.- 25/Del/2026 Interna�onal Management Group (UK) Ltd.