DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II vs. SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/244/2014HC DelhiDLHC01084015201408 February 2016Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Director of Income Tax. The judgment refers to a detailed decision in ITA 473/2012, pronounced on the same date. While the specific reasoning for dismissing these appeals is not elaborated in this excerpt, it is implied that the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's contentions, upholding the ITAT's decision. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals. The specific issues regarding royalty and fees for technical services were decided in favour of the assessees by the ITAT, and this decision was affirmed by the High Court.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the Director of Income Tax (DIT) challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals involve two respondents: New Skies Satellite BV and Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. The specific assessment years are not explicitly stated in this excerpt. The core of the dispute revolves around the taxability of income earned by these foreign satellite companies from providing satellite transponder capacity to Indian customers. The ITAT had previously ruled in favour of the assessees, leading to the present appeals by the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the income earned by the foreign satellite companies from providing satellite transponder capacity to Indian customers constitutes "royalty" under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is therefore taxable in India. 2. Whether the income is taxable as "fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions (Implicit from the Revenue's appeal): The assessees likely argued that the income was not royalty or fees for technical services, possibly contending that they were merely providing access to a satellite in space and not imparting any technical knowledge or right to use equipment in India. They may have relied on judicial precedents that distinguish between the use of space and the use of equipment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the payments made by Indian customers for satellite transponder capacity constituted royalty, as it involved the right to use equipment (the satellite) and potentially the right to receive signals. They likely argued that the income was also taxable as fees for technical services, given the nature of the service provided. The Revenue's appeals are based on the ITAT's decision against these contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi),Section 9(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 1

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 30.11.2015 Pronounced on: 08.02.2016

+ ITA 474/2012

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

…….Appellant

Versus

NEW SKIES SATELLITE BV

……Respondent

+ ITA 500/2012

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

…….Appellant

Versus SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD.

……Respondent

+ ITA 244/2014, C.M. APPL.9724/2014

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II

…….Appellant

Versus

SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD.

……Respondent Through: Sh. Rohit Madan, Sh. Ruchir Bhatia and Sh. Akash Vajpai, Advocates, for DIT in ITA 244/2014, ITA 473/2012, ITA 474/2012 & ITA 500/2012 Sh. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Mayank Nagi and Ms. Bhawna Bakshi, Advocates, for respondent in ITA 473/2012 and ITA 474/2012. Sh. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas and Sh. N. Sai Vinod, Advocates, for respondent in ITA 474/2012. Sh. F.V. Irani, Sh. Nikhil Nayyar, Sh. Arun. H. Mehta and Ms. Akansha, Advocates, for respondent in ITA 500/2012.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

ITA 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 2

% The appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs. For detailed decision, the judgement dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 473/2012 may be referred to.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 08, 2016

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 →