DCIT(IT)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. REFINITIV LIMITED, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 (AY: 2014-15 & 2015-16) DCIT(IT)-4(1)(1), vs. Refinitiv Limited Room No. 621, 6th Floor, Kautilya 14th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex. Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. PAN/GIR No: AABCR7557B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj D Sheth, Adv. Revenue by Shri Sridhar G. Menon (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 30.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.10.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These two appeals filed by the revenue emanate from the order passed u/s

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income Tax,

Appeal-58, Mumbai [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], both dated 30.09.2025, for the assessment

years (AY) 2014-15 and 2015-16. Since the facts and grounds are similar for both

years, with consent of both parties, these appeals were clubbed and heard

together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No.8136/Mum/2025 (AY 2014-15) is taken as the “lead case.”

(AY 2014-15) are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs.16,42,80,488 as against

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited the returned income of Rs.10,14,68,650, and further erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Refinitiv Ltd. (formerly known as Reuters Limited) for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2006-07, holding that payments received by the Assessee do not constitute royalty, ignoring the fact that the payments received by the Assessee are for allowing access to the processed data and use of software, trademark, etc., thus qualifying the definition of royalty as per Article 13 of the DTAA between India and UK. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not treating the receipts of the assessee under the distribution agreement as royalty / FTS while taxing the income as business income under Article 7 of the treaty, ignoring: (i) that when income is assessed under Article 7 of the treaty, the provisions of domestic law would apply; (ii) that under the domestic law, the definition of royalty and fee for technical services should be as per Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) respectively instead of Article 13 of the treaty, and the definition under Section 9 is much wider than the definition under the treaty. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,53,70,494 (Distribution Fee received from ANI Media Private Limited) by holding that the said receipt is not in the nature of Royalty under Article 13(3)(a) of the India UK tax treaty and Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and further erred in holding that the said receipt is not in the nature of Equipment Royalty under clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act,” (i) the payments are for allowing access to processed data, use of software, and trademark, thereby qualifying as royalty under the general definition; (ii) the entire 'Reuters Global Network through which the services are made available constitutes industrial/commercial/scientific equipment, thereby qualifying as equipment royalty. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,74,41,344 (Distribution Fee received from other customers in India) by holding that the said receipt is not in the nature of 'Royalty under Article 13(3)(a) of the India- UK tax treaty and Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, without appreciating that the 2

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited payments are for use of/right to use copyright, trademark, and information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify and grant credit for taxes deducted at source amounting to Rs. 14,47,180 on receipts of Distribution Fee from third-party customers in India, without first establishing the taxability of the underlying income, and further erred in holding that the Assessing Officer's action of not granting the credit was erroneous. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recomputed the interest under Section 234B of the Act on a consequential basis, and in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income subject to TDS u/s 195, no liability u/s 234B arises, ignoring the fact that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was the obligation of the assessee to pay advance tax, and since the assessee failed to do so, the Assessing Officer was right in charging interest u/s 234B. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground relating to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had rightly initiated such proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"

return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs.10,14,68,650/-. The

case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of

the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. After hearing the

assessee, the AO assessed total income at Rs.16,42,80,488/- u/s 143 (3) r.w.s.

144C(3) of the Act by making additions of distribution fees (DF) of

Rs.4,53,70,494/- from ANI and DF of Rs. 1,74,41,344/- received from customers in

India as royalty. The total income was determined at Rs.16,42,80,488/- as against

the returned income of Rs.10,14,68,650/-. 3

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) has allowed relief on both issues by following the decisions of ITAT,

Mumbai in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1998-99, 1999-00 and

2001-02 to 2006-07 in ITA Nos. 5024 & 5025/Mum/2004 dated 05.07.2022 and

ITA Nos.5228/Mum/2004 & Ors. dated 28.06.2023 respectively.

Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that both issues are

squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in appellant’s own case in ITA

Nos. 5024 & 5025/Mum/2004 (supra) and ITA Nos.5228/Mum/2004 & Ors.

(supra). He has filed copies of the said orders of the ITAT and has also filed a

written submission which is kept on record.

admits that the issues are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in appellant’s

own cases as referred to by the CIT(A) and relied upon by the Ld. AR.

also carefully gone through the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The assessee

entered into a service agreement ('SA') dated 25.06.1999 with ANI Media Pvt. Ltd.

('ANI'). Under the SA, assessee provided designated media products to ANI. ANI

marketed and distributed these products to its subscribers within the territory of

India. These designated media products were developed by assessee using

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited information collected from its worldwide network. These products are accurate

and constantly updated news articles comprising of business news, political and

sports news, graphics etc. which is information available in the public domain.

The assessee provided these products to ANI through SA on principal-to-principal

basis. ANI distributed these products to its subscribers within the territory of India

by entering into subscriber agreements locally. For providing these products to

ANI, assessee received DF-ANI equal to a specified percentage of gross revenue

earned by ANI from distribution of these products in India. The assessee does not

make available, retain ownership of, or hold any right to use in respect of any

equipment used by ANI. To the extent ANI ever acquired any equipment,

ownership vested fully in ANI, and assessee retained no continuing interest

therein. The distribution fees paid by ANI are consideration solely for access to

assessee’s media content, not for the use of, or right to use, any industrial,

commercial or scientific equipment. However, the AO held the amounts received

by assessee from ANI to be royalty by alleging that the same was for the use of or

right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment.

On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the said amount cannot be regarded as royalty,

relying on decisions of the ITAT in assessee's own case for earlier years as

mentioned above. Thus, we find that the issue of distribution fees received from

ANI under service agreement dated 25.06.1999 is covered in favour of assessee

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited in its own case for AY 2000-01 to AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 5228/Mum/2024 (supra).

For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:

“16. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the poned orders of the lower authorities. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own for assessment year 1998 1999 and 1999 - 2000 in ITA 5024 and 5025/M/2000 for dated 5/7/2022 wherein it has been held that the impugned Income is not chargeable to tax as royalty in India as per the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The appeal of the learned assessing officer as per ground number 1 - 3 of the appeal are on this ground only that the impugned income is chargeable to tax as royalty and not business Income. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench In assessee's own case for earlier years, therefore in absence of any change in the facts and circumstances of the case or in the agreement, we are bound by the judicial precedent and therefore we hold that the impugned receipt on by the assessee from the license agreement, distribution agreement, product distribution agreement India with India associated enterprises of the assessee Reuters private limited is not taxable as royalty as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Similarly, with respect to the income earned by the assessee as per service agreement from ANI media is also not chargeable to tax as royalty in the hands of the foreign appellant 3 of the assessee. In view of this, we dismiss all the ground 1 appeal of the learned assessing officer.”

7.1 The Ld. CIT-DR has not been able to distinguish the decision either on fact

or in law. Hence, following the above decisions, we hold that the amount received

by the appellant as distribution fees from ANI is not taxable as royalty.

Accordingly, ground No.4 of revenue is dismissed.

in India for information products, treated as royalty by AO. The assessee had also

distributed information products directly to its customers in India. For providing

these information products to its customers in India, assessee received DF from

said customers. The said DF has been held to be royalty by the AO. However, the

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited CIT(A) has held that the said payment cannot be regarded as royalty by relying on

the earlier decisions of the ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 1998-99 and 1999-

“5.4.1 The submissions made by the Appellant along with the assessment order have been examined. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has in the Appellant's own case for AY 1998-99and AY 1999-00held that the DF received by the Appellant for information product is not chargeable to tax as royalty. Hon'ble ITAT in para 5 & 6 of its order dated July5, 2022 has held as under:

"39. With the above background, the question before us is whether the payment of distribution fees falls under Royalty in sharing of business revenue. First let us analyse the nature of business and impact of the 3 agreements entered by the assessee with RI. RL is the holding company and service provider"

"40. RL is the provider of the news and financial information products through the use of sophisticated technological devices. These products are compiled and distributed by RL through the Reuters Global Network. This is a global communication network consisting of data storage facilities in three locations linked by satellite links and terrestrial links. RL uses network to receive and transmit news and financial information."

"41. In simple terms RL is the service provider provides the information utilizing its own central equipment and subscriber equipments. Central Equipments transmits the financial data/information and the subscriber equipments receives these information. RL transmits or shares the information with the ultimate users. The data or information consists of real time spot and future rates of foreign currencies. These information are current and changes on real time basis depending upon the financial market worldwide. These informations are akin to the financial markets and the participants in those financial markets. The ultimate beneficiaries of the data are the users of the information."

"42. The user has to install in their place of work the hardwares of subscriber equipments such as VSAT Dish, Decoder, Server and computer terminal. Without these instruments, the users cannot receive the information transmitted by RL. These equipments in particular VAT Dish and Decoder are supplied by the Reuters and 99% of the case, owned by the users or subscribers."

"43. The assessee is the facilitator and connector for the transmission of information from RL and the subscribers by entering into subscription agreement with the subscribers by involving in the marketing and after sales services. The assessee is the business partner with the RL to expand their business by marketing and distributing their subscription among the Indian 7

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited financial information users. The assessee has entered into distribution agreements with RL on the revenue sharing basis of 65:35 ratio."

"44. The above remittance or revenue cannot be treated as 'Royalty because the assessee never used the information or never has the right to use the information transmitted through the central equipment of RL. The assessee plays only the role of facilitator to distribute financial information. The assessee only collects the subscription fees and remits the distribution fees on the basis of Distribution Agreement. These remittance can only be treated as remittance for the business of Transmission or Distribution of financial news or information to the subscribers."

"45. Whether these transaction can be brought under FTS. No doubt the information are available on real time basis and these information are manipulated and processed with the help of experts across the Globe These financial information are transmitted on real-time basis and used by the financial users across the Globe. In India, it is transmitted through the central equipments kept in three sectors worldwide and received and utilised by the subscribers in India. The transmitter is the RL and receiver are the subscribers. The assessee is only the distributor and the ultimate users are the individual subscribers. The actual transaction is between users and the RL through the business partner i.e. RIPL. RIPL is the independent company even though it is subsidiary of RL. Therefore, the payments cannot be brought under FTS also."

"46. The next question is, whether the payment to RL can be brought to tax in India. We have already noticed that transmission of RL is falls under Article 7 of Indo UK treaty. Since, they do not have service PE in India as per the Coordinate Bench decision in RL case (ITA No. 7895/Mum/2011- Reuters Ltd. dated 28.08.2015)."

"47. In our view, the RL is only transmitting the financial news and information and we are in agreement with Ld. AR that it is only transmission of information and assessee shares the distribution fees with RL. The assessee is acting as a distributor/ intermediary between RL and subscribers. In this scenario, the distributor does not get the user right to any intellectual property. Therefore, as held in the case of MSM. satellite (supra) that assessee would receive a part of subscription charges paid by a large number of customers through different agencies. The paid subscription charges would enable the customers to view channels operated by such assessee. Thus, the assessee was not parting with any copyrights for which payment can be considered as royalty payment. Even in this case, RL is not parting with any copyright or industrial know how to the assessee in order to treat the sharing of distribution fees as Royalty."

"48. To treat the sharing of distribution fees as Royalty in FTS are far-fetched and the subscription fees were received from subscribers for the information received by them and these charges for the transmission of financial information from RL and the assessee collects the subscription charges and shares 65% of the subscription fees as the distribution charges with the RL based on the distribution agreement. This can only be treated as business transaction and business remittance."

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited views of the coordinate bench, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.”

5.4.2 Further, relying on the above order, the Hon'ble ITAT in Appellant's own case for AY 2000-01 to AY 2006-07 has again held that DF received by the Appellant for the information product is not in the nature of royalty. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced above in point 4.2.1.

5.4.3 In the light of the discussion held above, the case of the Appellant for the year under consideration is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in Appellant's own case from AY 1998-99 to AY 1999-00. Hence, it is held that the DF received by the Appellant from customers in India is not taxable as royalty. Accordingly, ground number 4 raised by the Appellant is allowed."

8.1 It is clear from the above that the finding of the CIT(A) is based on the

order of ITAT in appellant’s own case for AYs 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2001-02 to

2006-07. The Ld. CIT-DR has not controverted the findings either on facts or in

law. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which we confirm.

Accordingly, ground No.5 of revenue is dismissed.

assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO during the

assessment proceedings did not grant TDS credit of Rs.14,47,180/- despite the

fact that the assessee had already reported the corresponding income in the

return of income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the claim of the assessee

and grant the appropriate credit of TDS. We do not find any infirmity in the

direction of CIT(A). The AO is directed to verify the claim of assesse and grant

credit of TDS in accordance with law.

234B of the Act. In this ground, the revenue has alleged that the CIT(A) erred in

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited holding that the assessee being a non-resident was not liable to interest u/s 234B

of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has directed the AO to re-

compute the interest liability u/s 234B of the Act after verification and grant of

TDS credit of Rs.14,47,180/-. The CIT(A) has not held that the assessee being a

non-resident, its entire income is subject to TDS u/s 195 of the Act and no liability

u/s 234B of the Act arises and, therefore, to that extent the ground is

misconceived. We have perused the order of CIT(A) and find that the contention

of the Ld. AR is correct. The CIT(A) decided the ground as under:

“The submissions made by the Appellant have been examined. As mentioned above in point 4.5 above, the AO is directed to verify and give credit of TDS to the Appellant as per statutory provisions and accordingly compute the interest liability under Section 234B of the Act. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 10.1 We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which we confirm.

Accordingly, ground No.7 of the revenue is dismissed.

held that the AO has merely initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act

and therefore, the ground of appeal being premature was dismissed. We do not

find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which we confirm. Accordingly, ground

No.8 of revenue is dismissed.

grounds raised by the revenue. We have already decided the specific grounds and

hence, there is no need for adjudication of these grounds.

ITA Nos.8136 & 8137/MUM/2025 Refinitiv Limited 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

ITA No.8137/Mum/2025 (AY 2015-16)

the facts and circumstances of the above appeal for assessment year 2015-16 are

similar to the grounds and facts and circumstances for AY 2014-15 in ITA

No.8136/Mum/2025 (supra). Hence, the findings therein shall apply mutatis

mutandis as well to the AY 2015-16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 06.10.2026 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 ABHINAV Digitally signed by ABHINAV ANANT ANANT GAVANDE Date: 2026.10.22 11:48:57 GAVANDE +05'30' Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI