Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT

332 ITR 340High Court2011#214 most cited

What is Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT authority for?

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

359

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 368,149 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT · Asia Satellite · Section 9(1)(vi) · royalty income · use of equipment · satellite transponder charges · tax treaty · DTAA · withholding tax · Section 195 · fees for included services · use of process

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 2639 Taxmann.com 168

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 1961Section 90(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentsection 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)section 195(2)section 9(1)(vi)clarificatory amendmentfees for included serviceswithholding taxsection 90(2)royalty incomesection 9(1)tax treaty

Judgments citing Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT

Smit Singapoare Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6588/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Smit Singapore Vs. Dcit (It) – 4(2)(1) 17Th Floor, Room No. Pte Ltd., Srbc & Associates, Llp 1708, Air India 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Building , Nariman 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Point, Mumbai Dadar (W) – 400028. È"ȡ"Ȣ""Ȯ"ȡ" Ȳ"""Ȣ] ^ ] "" Ȳ""Pan/Gir No. : Aaocs1031L Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Iyengar, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Smit Singapore Vs. DCIT (IT) – 4(2)(1) 17th Floor, Room No. Pte ltd., SRBC & Associates, LLP 1708, Air India 14th Floor, The Ruby, Building , Nariman 29 senapati Bapat Marg Point, Mumbai Dadar (W) – 400028. è"ȡ"Ȣ""ȯ"ȡ" Ȳ"""Ȣ] ^ ] "" Ȳ""PAN/GIR No. : AAOCS1031L Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Appellant by Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR : Respondent by : Shri S.S. Iyengar, SR DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVA…

Ngc Network Asia Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S S Iyengar, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 92C

…s in India and/or advertisers are in India, the source of income cannot be considered to be in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Tele Communications Ltd., vs. DIT reported in 332 ITR 340 (Del). Moreover, M/s. NGC Network Asia LLC. ITA.no1178/M/2015, ITA.no 6677,&6678 /M/2018 & ITA.no7142/M/2019 we find that the decision in the case of Performing Rights Society ltd., was relating to the existence of “business connection” of the non- resident in India, whereas in the present case, the issue before us is whether the distribution ri…

Inmarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)-2(1)92), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7485/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shree Manoj Kumar Aggarwalinmarsat Global Ltd., Vs. Dy. Cit(It)-2(1)(2) Ernst & Young Llp, R.No.1612, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Ruby-29, Air India Bldg, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Dadar(W), Mumbai – Mumbai 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci6098K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…s similar Inmarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai to the facts in the present proceedings with ISRO which has been followed after a detailed discussion and in fact extracted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340(Del.). We note that no arguments have been advanced by the Revenue to rebut the assessee’s arguments that facts as considered in ISRO Satellite Centre are identical in the present proceedings also. We have taken into consideration that the learned CIT-DR has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon…

Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT(A)_58, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7301/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blereliance Corporate It Park Ltd. V. Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) Building No.4 & 5 Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor Ttc Industrial Area Air India Building, Nariman Point Thane-Belapur Road, Ghansoli Mumbai 400021 Navi Mumbai 400701 Pan: Aabcd7169H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Sunil M. Lala : Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam Department By Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2021 O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad (Jm)

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil M. Lala
Section 195Section 248Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. v. DCIT(IT)-4(1)(1) Building No.4 & 5 Room No. 1712, 17th Floor TTC Industrial Area Air India Building, Nariman Point Thane-Belapur Road, Ghansoli Mumbai 400021 Navi Mumbai 400701 PAN: AABCD7169H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Sunil M. Lala : Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam Department by Date of Hearing : 30.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by…

M/S. Ngc Network Asia, Llc, Mumbai vs. The ITO (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1662/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax C/O. Dsk Legal (International Tax)– 3(2) 4Th Floor, Express Towers Scindia House Nariman Point Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 038 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. Assistant Director Of C/O. Ngc Network(India) Income Tax (International Private Limited Tax)– 3(2) 1St Floor, Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O. Ngc Network(India) (International Tax) 3(1) Private Limited Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Ballard Estate Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400001 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Ngc Network Asia Ltd., M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O. Ngc Network(India) (International Tax) 3(1) Private Limited Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Ballard Estate Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400038 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O. Ngc Network(India) (International Tax) 3(2) Private Limited Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Ballard Estate Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400038 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Porus Kaka Revenue By Shri Shreenivasaraghava Iyengar Date Of Hearing 18/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2020

Section 143(3)Section 147

…s in India and/or advertisers are in India, the source of income cannot be considered to be in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Tele Communications Ltd., vs. DIT reported in 332 ITR 340 (Del). Moreover, we find that the decision in the case of Performing Rights Society ltd., was relating to the existence of “business connection” of the non-resident in India, whereas in the present case, the issue before us is whether the distribution rights could be taxed as “Royalty” or not. The issue in dispute is not related to the aspect of…

Smit Singapoare Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7055/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsmit Singapore Pte Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Srbc & Associates, Of Income-Tax (I.T.)-4(2)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400028 Pan – Aaocs1031L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh & Shri T.S. Khaisa, Cit, D.Rs Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…efinition provided in the tax treaty would be applicable as per Sec. 90(2) of the Act. In support of his contention the ld. A.R had relied on the order of the Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del). 14. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on Smit Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1) 16 ITA No.7055/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee…

Inmarsat Global Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7025/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodinmarsat Global Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Tax (International Taxation) 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Circle 2(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Vs. 20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 9(1)(vi)

…Court and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed vide an order dated 31.08.2008 of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Also, the assessee had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del). In the said case the Hon‟ble High Court after extensively relying on the advance ruling in the case of ISRO Satellite Centre [ISACT] Vs. DIT (2008) 307 ITR 59 (AAR), had concluded, that the amounts received for providing use of transponder facility on satellite to television companies outside India was not in the nature of royalty. Further…

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 6733/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…and were rendered without considered the impact of Explanation 5. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the rationale of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd v Director of Income Tax (2011) (332 ITR 340)regarding the meaning of the term "use of equipment" in the definition of Royalty (prior to the Explanations 5 and 6 introduced by the Finance Act 2012) would be equally applicable while construing the expression in the Tax Treaty in the absence of any specific amendment to the Tax Treaty definition to the similar effect. 2.10 That the learned AO…

M/S Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 286/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…and were rendered without considered the impact of Explanation 5. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the rationale of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd v Director of Income Tax (2011) (332 ITR 340)regarding the meaning of the term "use of equipment" in the definition of Royalty (prior to the Explanations 5 and 6 introduced by the Finance Act 2012) would be equally applicable while construing the expression in the Tax Treaty in the absence of any specific amendment to the Tax Treaty definition to the similar effect. 2.10 That the learned AO…

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 1548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…and were rendered without considered the impact of Explanation 5. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the rationale of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd v Director of Income Tax (2011) (332 ITR 340)regarding the meaning of the term "use of equipment" in the definition of Royalty (prior to the Explanations 5 and 6 introduced by the Finance Act 2012) would be equally applicable while construing the expression in the Tax Treaty in the absence of any specific amendment to the Tax Treaty definition to the similar effect. 2.10 That the learned AO…

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 3020/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…and were rendered without considered the impact of Explanation 5. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the rationale of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd v Director of Income Tax (2011) (332 ITR 340)regarding the meaning of the term "use of equipment" in the definition of Royalty (prior to the Explanations 5 and 6 introduced by the Finance Act 2012) would be equally applicable while construing the expression in the Tax Treaty in the absence of any specific amendment to the Tax Treaty definition to the similar effect. 2.10 That the learned AO…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

…ot taxable by the Honble Delhi High Court vide order dated 28/9/2012. The issue whether the recipient of such charges is liable to tax in India is also settled by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT, (332 ITR 340) in favour of the taxpayer. Similarly, such charges were also held not liable to tax in India in view of Article 12(3) of DTAA entered between India and USA in the case of DCIT v. PanAmSat International System Inc (103 TTJ 861 (Delhi). In view of the facts and the legal position stated above, it is clear that the assessee Company had no liability…

M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3865/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

…ot taxable by the Honble Delhi High Court vide order dated 28/9/2012. The issue whether the recipient of such charges is liable to tax in India is also settled by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT, (332 ITR 340) in favour of the taxpayer. Similarly, such charges were also held not liable to tax in India in view of Article 12(3) of DTAA entered between India and USA in the case of DCIT v. PanAmSat International System Inc (103 TTJ 861 (Delhi). In view of the facts and the legal position stated above, it is clear that the assessee Company had no liability…

DCIT 8 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Teleservices (Mah.) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-2013

ITA 1059/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40

…by its customer. This was done in the case of Lakshmi Audio Visual Inc. v. Asstt. Commr. of Commercial Taxes [2001] 124 STC 426 (Kar.), which has been followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340 / 197 Taxman 263/ 9 taxmann.com 168, in the following terms: "9. Thus if the transaction is one of leasing/hiring/letting simpliciter under which the possession of the goods, i.e., effective and general control of the goods is to be given to the customer and the customer has the freedom and choice of selecting the manner, time and nature of use a…

ACIT Company Circle VI(1), Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 1210/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Pranith Golecha, CA /For Respondent: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

…within meanings of that expression under Explanation 2 to Section 9 (l)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. However, when this decision came up for :- 13 -: scrutiny of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case reported as Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd Vs DIT (332 ITR 340), Their Lordships, after a very erudite and detailed discussion, concluded that "we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment on the interpretation of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act". It cannot, therefore, be open to us to approve the stand of the revenue to the effect that the payment for software is de fact…

Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT(A)_58, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7300/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15
Section 195Section 248

…ITA No. 7300/Mum/2016 Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President) And Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) Assessment year: 2014-15 Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. …………………………… Appellant Building No.4,5 TTC Industrial Area, Thane-Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400701 [PAN: AABCD7169H] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax …………………………… Respondent (IT) 4(1)(1), Room No. 1712, 17th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Appearances by Dr. Sunil Moti Lal for the appellant Avaneesh Tiwari for the respondent Date…

Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 487/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e in the present case. The Ld. AR also pointed out Article 12 of the DTAA and submitted that the Treaty will over-ride the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT 332 ITR 340 ii) ITO vs. People Interactive(I) P Ltd. ITA No. 2180/Mum/2009 iii) PCIT vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31 (Del HC) iv) CIT vs. Vinzas Solutions India P. Ltd. 292 CTR 332 (Mad HC) v) Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO 178 TTJ 708 (Del Tri.) vi) American Chemical Society vs. DCIT ITA No. 6811/Mum/2017 vii) Rackspace, US Inc. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 163…

M/S Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4389/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e in the present case. The Ld. AR also pointed out Article 12 of the DTAA and submitted that the Treaty will over-ride the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT 332 ITR 340 ii) ITO vs. People Interactive(I) P Ltd. ITA No. 2180/Mum/2009 iii) PCIT vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31 (Del HC) iv) CIT vs. Vinzas Solutions India P. Ltd. 292 CTR 332 (Mad HC) v) Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO 178 TTJ 708 (Del Tri.) vi) American Chemical Society vs. DCIT ITA No. 6811/Mum/2017 vii) Rackspace, US Inc. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 163…

Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1815/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Dr. Rajeev Harit
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ness connection in India and its income was not taxable in India, there was no requirement to deduct tax at source. In this context, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunication Ltd. v/s CIT, [2011] 332 ITR 340 (Del.). The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to disallow the payment made to Asia Satellite Telecommunication Ltd. amounting to ` 17,01,27,540 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the aforesaid disallowance before learned DRP, however, the disallowance…

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 87/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…a question that came up for consideration was whether the retrospective amendment to Sec.195 can fasten obligation to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal found that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd Vs. DIT (332 ITR 340) had taken the view that the transmission of television signals through Satellite / transponders would not fall in the category of "royalty" as defined under Explanation 2 to sec. 9(1) of the Act. Subsequently Explanation 6, which expanded the scope of the expression "process" was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect, to nu…