ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK do not constitute 'Royalty' under the India-UK DTAA. The tribunal emphasized that domestic law amendments, like Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi), do not automatically alter the interpretation of treaty provisions unless the treaty itself is amended by both contracting states.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held that transponder charges paid by Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. to Intelsat UK were not taxable in India as royalty. The core issue revolved around whether these payments for satellite transponder services qualified as royalty under the Income Tax Act and the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
What were the issues?
Whether transponder service fees paid to a non-resident constitute royalty under the India-UK DTAA, particularly in light of amendments to the domestic law regarding the definition of 'process'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANTSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Heard together (12 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER BENCH: The Revenue ha
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 →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
