CIT vs. BBC WORLDWIDE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 703 / 2011HC Delhi30 September 201120 pages
For Petitioner: ABHISHEK MARATHA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that no further income was taxable in India. The Tribunal noted that for Assessment Year 2002-03, the FAR analysis was prepared by BWIPL's agent, and the TPO clearly opined that the 15% commission paid to BWIPL was at Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal reasoned that if the commission was treated as ALP at the recipient's hands (BWIPL), a different view could not be taken for the assessee who paid the same commission. The Tribunal also referred to the TPO's orders for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04, which found no adverse inference could be drawn regarding ALP in the assessee's case. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's plea that country-wise accounts were not made, noting that the assessee had prepared country accounts for India, making CBDT Circular No. 742 inapplicable. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in SET Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., which held that if the correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further is left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. The Tribunal concluded that no question of law arose and dismissed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee, BBC Worldwise Ltd., is a non-resident company incorporated in England and Wales, part of the BBC Group. Its Indian subsidiary, BBC Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. (BWIPL), acted as its authorized agent for airtime sales on the BBC World channel in India. BWIPL solicited orders, collected payments, and received a 15% commission on advertisement revenues. For the assessment years in question, the assessee initially declared NIL income, later revising it to declare royalty income. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined that BWIPL constituted a business connection and a permanent establishment in India, estimating profits at 20% of total advertisement revenue. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) did not decide on the business connection/PE issue but focused on the arm's length price of the commission paid to BWIPL.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that no further income is attributable to the assessee as the transaction was at arm's length price, given that a mandatory FAR analysis was not conducted for any assessment year to determine the arm's length price, as provided by Article 7 of the Indo-UK DTAA, Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The Assessee contended that its Indian agent, BWIPL, was remunerated on an arm's length basis, and therefore, no further income was taxable in India. The assessee argued that the Department itself had accepted the 15% commission as fair transfer pricing in the case of BWIPL for Assessment Year 2002-03, citing the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) order. The assessee relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in SET Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT and this Court's judgment in DIT vs. Galileo International Incorporation, which referred to CBDT Circular No. 742/1996 acknowledging 15% as a usual service charge for agents of foreign telecasting companies, a principle noted in DIT vs. Morgan Stanley. The Revenue contended that a mandatory FAR analysis was not conducted for the assessee's transactions to determine the arm's length price.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92C,Section 92CA,Section 9(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

2011:DHC:11989-DB

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →