THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. M/S COMMUNICATIONS GLOBAL NETWORKS SERVICES LTD,

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(2), 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ A/W SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.08.2023 in Appeal IT(IT)A No.2218/Bang/2019 partly allowing the assessee appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 vide Annexure-A.

Heard learned counsel Sri. Y. V. Raviraj along with learned counsel Sri. Dilip M., for the appellants and Sri. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Perused the appeal papers.

By order dated 18.01.2024, the present appeal was admitted. In sum and substance the substantial question of law involved in the above appeal is as to payment towards interconnect service charges could be chargeable to tax as royalty. 5. The above question is answered in ITA No.160/2015 and connected appeals. This Court by Judgment dated 14.07.2023, at paragraph 21 has held as follows: "21. The third question is, whether the payments made to NTOS for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty. It was argued by Shri. Pardiwala, that for subsequent years in assessee's own case, the ITAT has held that tax is not deductable when payment is made to non-resident telecom operator. This factual aspect is not refuted. Thus the Revenue has reviewed its earlier stand for the subsequent assessment years placing reliance on Viacom etc35, rendered by the ITAT. In that view of the matter this question also needs to be answered against the Revenue."

The observation made by this Court in ITA No.160/2015 and connected matters would squarely apply to the question raised in the present appeal also. Therefore, in terms of the