THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS S.N.C ET COMPAGNIE

ITA/333/2023HC DelhiDLHC01023357202313 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV26 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
13 SCC 294 · 2017 · SC
200 citing
ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai
3 SCC 321 · 2022
89 citing

ITA 333/2023, ITA 336/2023, ITA 382/2023, ITA 344/2023 ITA 380/2023, ITA 381/2023 & ITA 773/2023

Page 1 of 26

$~5 to 10 & 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 333/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS S.N.C ET COMPAGNIE

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. Divesh Chawla, Mr. Saurabh Jain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla & Ms. Sandy Sharma, Advs.

6 + ITA 336/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET. COMPAGNIE

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. Divesh Chawla, Mr. Saurabh Jain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla & Ms. Sandy Sharma, Advs.

7 + ITA 382/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

ITA 333/2023, ITA 336/2023, ITA 382/2023, ITA 344/2023 ITA 380/2023, ITA 381/2023 & ITA 773/2023

Page 2 of 26

Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET. COMPAGNIE

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. Divesh Chawla, Mr. Saurabh Jain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla & Ms. Sandy Sharma, Advs.

8 + ITA 344/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET. COMPAGNIE

The Commissioner of Income Tax impugns the decision rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 dated 21 November 2022 in ITA 382/2023 for Assessment Year2 “2.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that assessee did not have a dependent agent PE (DAPE) in India by observing that the transaction between the assessee and ESPN India is limited to conferring of right to distribute the channels of ESPN Star Sport in India through cable operators in an independent manner when it has been brought out that the assessee had complete control over sale of agent, bore commercial risk on behalf of the agent thereby not appreciating the principle of substance over form? [AY 2003- 2004], ITA 381/2023 [AY 2004-2005], ITA 380/2023 [AY 2009- 2010], ITA 344/2023 [AY 2011-2012], ITA 336/2023 [AY 2012- 2013], ITA 773/2023 [AY 2014-2015] and ITA 333/2023 [AY 2014- 2015]. The following questions are proposed for our consideration: - 2.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE in India by observing that there was nothing to suggest that the assessee had any control over the business/premises of ESPN India when it has been clearly brought out that the assessee and ESPN India has common management and identical functions and for all practical purposes the distinction between the two was insignificant? 2.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that assessee has no business connection in India and is not taxable in terms of section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee had complete control over sale of the agent and bore commercial risk on behalf of the agent? 2.4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that if the purported PE is remuneration on arm's length as subsidiary company, no further attribution of profit be made on foreign company, when the

the ITAT has returned compelling findings of fact to hold that there is no fixed place PE. It becomes pertinent to note at this stage that when assessment was undertaken under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 19619, the Assessing Officer10 had while dealing with the facts as they obtained for AY 2003-2004 held that ESS Distribution (Mauritius) had a fixed place PE in India and consequently 70% of the gross distribution revenue was liable to be treated as business income of the assessee in India. On the appeal which was taken by ESS Distribution (Mauritius), the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)11 5. We note that insofar as the issue of fixed place PE is concerned, the ITAT has held as under: - had not only confirmed the view taken by the AO, it additionally held that ESPN India constituted a DAPE of the assessee. It was the aforesaid decision which was thereafter taken in appeal before the ITAT. “22. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. At the outset, we need to examine, whether the assessee has a fixed place PE in India. The distribution agreement between the assessee and ESPN India clearly stated that the transaction is on principal to principal basis. The agreement further allowed ESPN India to enter into agreement with sub- distributors/cable operators so that the channels can be distributed to end consumers in India. As per the terms of the agreement, the revenue earned from distribution of channels has to be shared between the assessee and ESPN India in certain ratio. The materials on record demonstrate that ESPN India is carrying on its distribution activity as well as other activities, such as, acquisition and allotment of air time for advertisement and sale/leasing of decoders. No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to suggest that the assessee has any kind of control over the business of ESPN India or the premises of ESPN India have been given at the disposal of the assessee or the assessee carries on any kind of business through the premises of ESPN India.

ADIT Vs. E Funds IT Solutions Inc. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the issue of existence to fixed place PE has held as under: “5. As against this, Shri S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has argued that the tests for whether there is a fixed place PE have now been settled by the judgment of this Court in Formula One (supra), and that it is clear that for a fixed place PE, it must be necessary that the said fixed place must be “at the disposal” of the assessees, which means that the assessees must have a right to use the premises for the purpose of their own business, which has not been made out in the facts of this case. He further argued that, on the facts of this case, both the US companies as well as the Indian company pay income tax, and the Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated 22nd February, 2006, has specifically held that whatever is paid under various agreements between the US companies and the Indian company are on arm’s length pricing and that, this being the case, even if a fixed place PE is found, once arm’s length price is paid, the US companies go out of the dragnet of Indian taxation. He also adverted to Article 5(6) to state that the mere fact that a 100% subsidiary may be carrying on business in India does not by itself means that the holding company would have a PE in India. Further, according to learned counsel, so far as the service PE is concerned, even the assessing officer did not find that such a PE existed. According to him, under Article 5(2)(l), it is necessary that the foreign enterprises must provide services to customers who are in India, which is not Revenue’s case as all their customers exist only outside India. Further, according to the learned counsel, the entire personnel engaged in the Indian operations are employed only by the Indian company and the fact that the US companies may indirectly control such employees is only for purposes of protecting their own interest. Ultimately, there are four businesses that the assessees are engaged in, namely, ATM Management Services, Electronic Payment Management, Decision Support and Risk Management and Global Outsourcing and Professional Services. Since all these businesses are carried on outside India and the property through which these businesses are carried out, namely ATM networks, software solutions and other hardware networks and information technology infrastructure were all located outside India, the activities of e-Funds India are independent business activities on which, as has been noticed by the High Court, independent profits are made and income assessed to tax This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

under the Income Tax Act. According to the learned counsel, “agency PE” was never argued before the assessing officer and even before the ITAT. Therefore, no factual foundation for the same has been laid. Equally, according to the learned counsel, the settlement procedure availed for the assessment years in question cannot be said to be binding for subsequent years as they were without prejudice to the assessees’ contention that they have no PE in India. He also relied upon the OECD Commentary, paragraph 3.6 in particular, to demonstrate that the so-called admissions made and relied upon by the three authorities below were correctly overturned by the High Court. Learned counsel also stated that the ground of adverse inference was never argued or put before any of the authorities below, and the only place that it could be found is in the assessment order for the year 2003-04, which order became non-est as it was substituted by the agreement entered into between the parties ending in withdrawal of appeals before the CIT (Appeals). Thus, according to the learned counsel, the view of the High Court is absolutely correct and should not be interfered with. Learned counsel also argued that the cross- appeals of the Revenue were correctly dismissed in that, even though the ITAT decided the case in law against the assessees, yet it found on facts, differing from the calculation formula by the authorities below, that nil tax was payable. This is the only part of the ITAT judgment upheld by the High Court, and should not, therefore, be disturbed in any case. 6. Before we deal with the submissions made on both sides, it is necessary to first set out the statutory background. This is contained in Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, before it was amended in 2009. Section 90(1) and 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, as it then stood, read as under: “Section 90. Agreement with foreign countries.— 1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India— (a) for the granting of relief in respect of— (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that country; or (ii) income-tax chargeable under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment, or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

(b) for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country, or (c) for exchange of information for the prevention of evasion or avoidance of income-tax chargeable under this Act or under the corresponding law in force in that country, or investigation of cases of such evasion or avoidance, or (d) for recovery of income-tax under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country, and may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make such provisions as may be necessary for implementing the agreement. (2) Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee.” 7 xxxx 8 xxxx 9 xxxx 10 xxxx 11 xxxx 12. “49. Thus, it is clear that there must exist a fixed place of business in India, which is at the disposal of the US companies, through which they carry on their own business. There is, in fact, no specific finding in the assessment order or the appellate orders that applying the aforesaid tests, any fixed place of business has been put at the disposal of these companies. The assessing officer, CIT (Appeals)and the ITAT have essentially adopted a fundamentally erroneous approach in saying that they were contracting with a 100% subsidiary and were outsourcing business to such subsidiary, which resulted in the creation of a PE. The High Court has dealt with this aspect in some detail in which it held: The Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have primarily relied upon the close association between e-Fund India and the two assessees and applied functions performed, assets used and risk assumed, criteria to determine whether or not the assessee has fixed place of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

business. This is not a proper and appropriate test to determine location PE. The fixed place of business PE test is different. Therefore, the fact that e-Fund India provides various services to the assessee and was dependent for its earning upon the two assessees is not the relevant test to determine and decide location PE. The allegation that e- Fund India did not bear sufficient risk is irrelevant when deciding whether location PE exists. The fact that e-Fund India was reimbursed the cost of the call centre operations plus 16% basis or the basis of margin fixation was not known, is not relevant for determining location or fixed place PE. Similarly what were the direct or indirect costs and corporate allocations in software development centre or BPO does not help or determine location PE. 13. It further went on to hold that the ITAT’s finding that the assessees were a joint venture or sort of partnership with the Indian subsidiary was wholly incorrect. Also, none of these arguments have been invoked by the Revenue and such a finding would, therefore, be perverse. After citing Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions, Arvid A. Skaar in Permanent Establishment: Erosion of a Tax Treaty Principle and Bollinger vs. Commissioner, 108 S.Ct.1173, the High Court found against the Revenue, holding that there is no fixed place PE on the facts of the present case. We agree with the findings of the High Court in this regard. 14. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K Report, as has been correctly pointed out by the High Court, is also Assignment or sub-contract to e-Fund India is not a factor or rule which is to be applied to determine applicability of Article 5(1). Further whether or not any provisions for intangible software was made or had been supplied free of cost is not the relevant criteria/test. e-Fund India was/is a separate entity and was/is entitled to provide services to the assessees who were/are independent separate taxpayers. Indian entity i.e. subsidiary company will not become location PE under Article 5(1) merely because there is interaction or cross transactions between the Indian subsidiary and the foreign Principal under Article 5(1). Even if the foreign entities have saved and reduced their expenditure by transferring business or back office operations to the Indian subsidiary, it would not by itself create a fixed place or location PE. The manner and mode of the payment of royalty or associated transactions is not a test which can be applied to determine, whether fixed place PE exists.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

. The decisions cited before us, particularly the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of TAJ TV Ltd. (supra) and Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the present appeal. Therefore, following them, we hold that the assessee does not either had a fixed place PE or dependant agent PE in India under Article 5 of the India- Mauritius Tax Treaty. In any case of the matter, it is an undisputed factual position that ESPN India has been remunerated at arm’s length and there are no adjustments suggested by the TPO in any of the assessment years under dispute. That being the case, no further attribution of profit can be made to the PE. In this regard, we rely upon the decisions cited by learned counsel for the assessee. Thus, we hold that the distribution revenue received by the assessee is not taxable in India.” 7. The aforesaid conclusions of the ITAT clearly merit no interference nor do they give rise to any substantial question of law. 8. While dealing with the issue of royalty, the ITAT has on a detailed review of the contract terms and the facts as placed before it recorded the following conclusions:- “13. A reading of the aforesaid Article would make it clear that the expression royalty means consideration received for the use of or right to use of any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work (including cinematograph films and films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, any patent trade-mark design, model plan, secret formula plan etc. Admittedly, the expression copyright has not been defined either under the Income Tax Act or under the India–Mauritius Tax Treaty. Therefore, we have to find the meaning of copyright in the Copyright Act. As discussed earlier, section 14 of the Copyright Act defines copyright as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

xxx 15. It is further relevant to observe, the consequences for infringement of copyright and broadcast reproduction right have been dealt with differently under the Copyright Act. Thus, on a conjoint reading of section 14 and 37 of the Copyright Act, a holistic view can be taken that broadcast reproduction right is distinct and separate from Copyright Act. “16. Having heard both the sides, we observe that Id CIT(A) while examining the issue has stated that the Non- resident company has granted non-exclusive distribution rights of the channels to the assessee and has not given any right to use or exploit any copyright. The assessee is no way concerned whether the programs broadcast by the Non- resident company are copyrighted or not. The said distribution is purely a commercial right, which is distinct from the right to use copyright. We observe that Id CIT(A) has considered the provisions of Section 14 and Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is observed that Section 37 of the Copyright Act deals with Broadcast Reproduction Rights (BRR) and same is covered under Section 37 of the Copy Right Act and not under section 14 thereof. We observe that Id CIT(A) has also considered Clause 6.3 of the distribution agreement entered into between assessee company and Non-resident company, which states that the right granted to the assessee under the agreement is not and shall not be construed to be a grant of any license or transfer of any right in any copyright. Ld CIT(A) has stated that the assessee submitted before him that the cable operator only retransmits the television signals transmitted to it by a broadcaster without any editing, delays, interruptions, deletions, or additions and, therefore the payment made by the assessee to the Non-resident company is not for use of any copyright and consequently cannot be characterized as Royalty. Ld. CIT (A) has held that In case of DDIT Vs. SET India Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Coordinate Bench, while dealing with aforesaid aspect, has held as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

In order to appreciate the arguments which were addressed before us, we deem it apposite to briefly notice the following salient clauses as they appear in the agreement between ESPN Star Sports and ESS Distribution (Mauritius):- “1(a) ESS hereby appoints Distributor as distributor to distribute and, or make available for distribution (subject to ESS's prior written approval, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) the international ESPN network programming service (the "E$PN Service”) throughout the Area effective April 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003(the "Term") and Distributor hereby, accepts such appointment. (b) The Term shall automatically renew for successive periods of one year each unless ES5 gives written notice to Distributor of its intent not to renew at least forty-five days prior to the scheduled expiration of the original or then applicable renewal Term. Distributor acknowledges and agrees that the above appointment is limited and qualified to the extent of solely making the ESPN Service available in the Area to approved sub distributors in strict accordance 'With the terms and conditions herein. Distributor further agrees that nothing in this Agreement shall provide Distributor with any rights whatsoever to the ESPN Service, nor convey, confer, grant, assign or otherwise provide Distributor with copyright, title or any other proprietary or ownership interest in or to the ESPN Service or any elements thereof. (c) All rights in the content of the ESPN Service are expressly reserved by ESS. Distributor shall not use, authorize or permit the use of the FSPN Service, or any element thereof, for any purpose other than the purpose expressly specified under this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, if the Distributor becomes aware of any infringement or threatened infringement in the Area, of the. rights and entitlements of ESS in the ESPN Service, the Distributor shall inform ESS of such infringement. ESS may require Distributor to take, either by itself or through a person authorised by it, all reasonable steps to end such infringement, including initiating appropriate legal action on behalf of ESS. Distributor agrees and undertakes to distribute the ESPN Service provided by ESS in its entirety, without any alteration, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

xxx . (2) Neither Distributor nor ESS shall have, or shall hold itself out as having, the right or authority to bind the other or to assume, create or incur any liability or any obligation of any kind, express or implied, against or in the name of or on behalf of the other 3(a) Distributor shall comply with all laws, rules and regulations, and &hall obtain all necessary licenses and permits. . (b) Distributor acknowledges that the names and marks of ESPN STAR Sports and ESPN (and the names of certain programs which appear in the ESPN Service) are the exclusive property of ESPN, Inc., ESS and its program suppliers and that Distributor has not acquired and will not acquire any proprietary rights therein by reason of this Agreement. Subject thereto and to the terms of this Agreement, ESS grants to the Distributor a non exclusive license to use the said names and marks on advertising and promotional material, notepapers, stationery and related materials used by the Distributor for its business activities under the Agreement. ESS shall have the right to approve any of Distributor mentioning or using of such names or marks and publicity about ESS or the programming included in the ESPN Service. 4(a) Distributor shall not publish or disseminate any material which violates any restrictions imposed by ESS or ESPN, Inc. program suppliers and disclosed to Distributor by ESS Distributor shall be entitled to allow sub- distributors appointed by it to distribute the ESPN Service to use the names and marks of ESPN STAR Sports and ESPN to the extent permitted hereunder. Upon ESS's request, Distributor shall promptly discontinue, and sha11 procure all sub-distributors to promptly discontinue, use of any material or material containing any of the names and marks of ESPN STAR Sports and ESPN. In consideration of the appointment of the Distributor to distribute the ESPN Service in the Area, Distributor shall pay ESS (subject to deduction, if required, of all applicable taxes), the aggregate of the following amounts (i) a minimum guaranteed amount of USD 9,500,000 (United States Dollars Nine Million Five Hundred Thousand only) per annum; and : (ii) an amount which is equal to 88% of the excess of the total gross revenues of the Distributor per annum over and above USD 9,500,000. For this purpose gross revenues shall mean the amount due to the Distributor from distributing the ESPN Service in the Area as reduced by any taxes that are withheld in the Area. xxx

project or supervisory activity continues for a period of more than nine months. [(j) the furnishing of services, including consultancy services, by an enterprise through employees or other personnel engaged by the enterprise for such purpose, but only where activities of that nature continue (for the same or connected project) for a period or periods aggregating more than 90 days within any 12 month period.] 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this article, the term “permanent establishment” shall be deemed not to include: (a) the use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage or display of merchandise belonging to the enterprise; (b) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of storage or display; (c) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of processing by another enterprise; (d) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise or for collecting information for the enterprise; (e) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely— (i) for the purpose of advertising, (ii) for the supply of information, (iii) for scientific research, or (iv) for similar activities, which have a preparatory or auxiliary character for the enterprise. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article, a person acting in a Contracting State for or on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State [other than an agent of an independent status to whom the provisions of paragraph (5) apply] shall be deemed to be a permanent establishment of that enterprise in the first-mentioned State if: (i) he has and habitually exercises in that first-mentioned State, an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise, unless his activities are limited to the purchase of goods or merchandise for the enterprise; or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24

(ii) he habitually maintains in that first-mentioned State a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise from which he regularly fulfils orders on behalf of the enterprise. 5. An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent of an independent status, where such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business. However, when the activities of such an agent are devoted exclusively or almost exclusively on behalf of that enterprise, he will not be considered an agent of an independent status within the meaning of this paragraph. 6. The fact that a company, which is a resident of a Contracting State controls or is controlled by a company which is a resident of the other Contracting State, or which carries on business in that other Contracting State (whether through a permanent establishment or otherwise) shall not, of itself, constitute either company a permanent establishment of the other. Article 12 — Royalties 1. Royalties arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the law of that State, but the tax so charged shall not exceed 15 per cent of the gross amount of the royalties. 3. 4. The term “royalties” as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work (including cinematograph films, and films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting), any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply if the recipient of the royalties, being a resident of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the royalties arise, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect of which the royalties are paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base. In such a case, the provisions of article 7 or article 14, as the case may be, shall apply. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:04:24