ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5251/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 January 2026AY 2018-1918 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that transponder service fees are not royalty under the India-UK DTAA, as the amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act are not automatically incorporated into the treaty. The CIT(A)'s findings were upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision that transponder service fees paid by Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. to Intelsat UK were not liable for TDS. The assessee contended that these payments did not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or the India-UK DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether transponder service charges paid to a foreign entity constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act and the India-UK DTAA, and if withholding tax is applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 195,Section 248,Section 254,Section 9(1)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 2

PER BENCH:

The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 27/06/2025, passed under section 248 read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 55, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. Since the issue raised in all these appeals by the Revenue is similar, arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order.

3.

As the Revenue has raised similar grounds in all these appeals, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.5246/Mum/2025 are reproduced as follows for ready reference:

"1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source w/s 195 of the Act on payments made to intelsat UK, for transponder charges on the ground that the payment did not constitute royalty u/s. 9(1) (vi) of the Act or under the India-UK DTAA?"

2.

"Whether on the facts and circumstan

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 2,836 judgments and leading authorities on Section 195 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →