ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK do not constitute 'Royalty' as per the India-UK DTAA. Consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax at source on these payments.
What were the facts?
The assessee made payments to Intelsat UK for transponder charges. The Revenue contended these payments were royalty and thus subject to TDS. The assessee argued they were not royalty under the India-UK DTAA and filed an appeal after withholding taxes.
What were the issues?
Whether transponder service fees paid to a foreign entity constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act and the India-UK DTAA, making them liable for TDS.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide 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.
- Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT359 citing332 ITR 340 · 2011 · HC
- DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV325 citing382 ITR 114 · 2016 · HC
- CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust124 citing144 ITR 146 · 1983 · HC
- 156-157. (c) N.V. Philips v. Commissioner of Income Tax46 citing172 ITR 521 · 1988 · HC
- (a) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co.42 citing139 ITR 806 · 1983 · HC
- ACIT (IT) v. Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd.15 citing134 Taxmann.com 243 · 2022 · ITAT
- ACIT (IT) v. United Home Entertainment (P.) Ltd.3 citing175 Taxmann.com 377 · 2025 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANTSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Heard together (7 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER BENCH:
The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders
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.
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 195
- Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs Ward 1, TuticorinITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Gmp Technical Solutions Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 6155/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S. Sarjak Container Lines Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1791/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs DCIT, International Taxation Circle…ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Buttercup Publishing Private Limited, Delhi vs ITO Int Tax. 1(1)(2), DelhiITITA 19/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
