THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. M/S COMMUNICATIONS GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES LTD,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that payments made to non-resident telecom operators for interconnect services and transfer of capacity are not chargeable to tax as royalty. This decision was based on a previous judgment by the same court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-2010. The core issue was whether payments for interconnect service charges to a non-resident could be taxed as royalty.
What were the issues?
Whether interconnect service charges paid to a non-resident telecom operator constitute royalty income taxable in India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12158-DB ITA No. 4 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
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(1), 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ A/W SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)
AND:
M/S COMMUNICATIONS GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES LTD, 81, NEWGATE STREET, LONDON, EC1A 7AJ, UNITED KINGDOM, PAN:AAGCC 9220K. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12158-DB ITA No. 4 of 2024
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A NO. 89/BANG/2019 DATED 29/08/2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 1. 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. 89/BANG/2019 partly allowing the assessee appeal for the assessment year 2009-2010 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.
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12158-DB ITA No. 4 of 2024
By order dated 10.01.2024, 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
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12158-DB ITA No. 4 of 2024
said Judgment dated 14.07.2023 in ITA No.160/2015 and connected matters, the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. Hence, the present appeal also stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE
SD/- JUDGE
sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026