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

Ariba Inc, New Delhi vs. ADIT (Intl Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 4584/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 182Section 234BSection 28Section 44DSection 9(1)

…y for rendering service, the consideration thereof cannot constitute royalty merely for the reason that the services are being provided through the use of equipment. 25. Reliance in this respect is placed on Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT: 332 ITR 340 (Delhi HC) wherein the Delhi High Court held that consideration paid to a 14 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 satellite company for uplinking and down linking of TV signals will not be royalty for use of transponders inside the satellite. 26. Subsequently, the AAR adop…

Ariba Inc, New Delhi vs. ADIT (Intl Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 4583/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 182Section 234BSection 28Section 44DSection 9(1)

…y for rendering service, the consideration thereof cannot constitute royalty merely for the reason that the services are being provided through the use of equipment. 25. Reliance in this respect is placed on Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT: 332 ITR 340 (Delhi HC) wherein the Delhi High Court held that consideration paid to a 14 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 satellite company for uplinking and down linking of TV signals will not be royalty for use of transponders inside the satellite. 26. Subsequently, the AAR adop…

Ariba Inc, New Delhi vs. ADIT (Intl Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 4582/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 182Section 234BSection 28Section 44DSection 9(1)

…y for rendering service, the consideration thereof cannot constitute royalty merely for the reason that the services are being provided through the use of equipment. 25. Reliance in this respect is placed on Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT: 332 ITR 340 (Delhi HC) wherein the Delhi High Court held that consideration paid to a 14 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 satellite company for uplinking and down linking of TV signals will not be royalty for use of transponders inside the satellite. 26. Subsequently, the AAR adop…

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. Intelsat Corporation

ITA/347/2022HC Delhi21 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…of this Court in assessee’s own case in ITA 900/2019 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein this Court dismissed an appeal of the Revenue on similar grounds relying on the decisions in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del) and Director of International Taxation Vs. New This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003803 ITA Nos.346-347/2022 Page 3 of 3 Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 Del. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not accepted the aforesaid decisions and has preferred SLPs against the same…

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. Intelsat Corporation

ITA/346/2022HC Delhi21 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…of this Court in assessee’s own case in ITA 900/2019 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein this Court dismissed an appeal of the Revenue on similar grounds relying on the decisions in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del) and Director of International Taxation Vs. New This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003803 ITA Nos.346-347/2022 Page 3 of 3 Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 Del. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not accepted the aforesaid decisions and has preferred SLPs against the same…

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. Intelsat Corporation

ITA - 347 / 2022HC Delhi21 Sept 2022
Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…of this Court in assessee’s own case in ITA 900/2019 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein this Court dismissed an appeal of the Revenue on similar grounds relying on the decisions in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del) and Director of International Taxation Vs. New 2022:DHC:3803-DB ITA Nos.346-347/2022 Page 3 of 3 Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 Del. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not accepted the aforesaid decisions and has preferred SLPs against the same. 5. Though the appeals in the aforementioned cases are pe…

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

ITA 711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR
Section 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 711/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Textron India Pvt. Ltd., 1st & 2nd Floor, B Block (Tower 2), The Deputy SEZ Campus, Commissioner of Global Village, Income Tax, RVCE Post, Circle – 7(1)(1), Mylasandra, Vs. Bangalore. Off Mysore Road, Bangalore – 560 059. PAN: AACCT0118M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sumit Khurana, CA Revenue by : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA…

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

…at the reasoning and conclusion on facts similar to the facts in the present proceedings with ISRO which has been followed after detailed discussion and in fact extracted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del). We note that no argument have been advanced by the Revenue to rebut the assessee's argument that facts as considered in ISRO Satellite Centre are identical in the present proceedings also," ….. 4 Inmarsat Global Limited 10.2. In view of the above reasoning on facts and law we find that the judicial precedent as cited before us and as disc…

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Range-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ITA No. 1031/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 25 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2017-18 Inmarsat Global Limited .……………………..………………Appellant Ernst & Yound LLP, 14th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai 400 028 [PAN: AAACI6098K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-2(2)(1) Mumbai ……………...………….………Respondent Appearances by: Aarati Sathe for the appellant Milind Chavan for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of pronouncing the or…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…y authorities below is based on the amendment made to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, by introduction of Explanation 5 and Explanation 6 by 2012. He submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi High Court in Asia Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 held that, for a payment to be regarded as ‘royalty’ under the Act or under the DTAA, there has to “use” of the intellectual property by the payer. It is submitted that, the Explanation 5 seeks to treat any payment as royalty, whether or not the payer uses the ‘process’. 22. The Ld.AR submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi Tribunal in Asia Satel…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…y authorities below is based on the amendment made to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, by introduction of Explanation 5 and Explanation 6 by 2012. He submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi High Court in Asia Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 held that, for a payment to be regarded as ‘royalty’ under the Act or under the DTAA, there has to “use” of the intellectual property by the payer. It is submitted that, the Explanation 5 seeks to treat any payment as royalty, whether or not the payer uses the ‘process’. 22. The Ld.AR submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi Tribunal in Asia Satel…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “A” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member M/s Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. CIT, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, BMTC Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6th Block, Koramangala Village and Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 PAN – AAACH4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 30…

Intelsat Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4412/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand
Section 271Section 9

…ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench (ITAT): „G‟, New Delhi in ITA No. 236/Del/2016 in respect of the assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del) and Director of International Taxation Vs. New Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 Del. Since the issues raised by the Revenue are squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of this Court, in our view, no question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed." 9. Similar view was taken in Assessment Year 2013-14 by this Tribunal in…

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1073/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

…case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1487 of 2018) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia 4 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Satellite Communication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 & Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114, the relevant part of decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. The assessee has made payment for transponder service fees paid to three entities namely: 1. Intel…

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

…case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1487 of 2018) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia 4 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Satellite Communication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 & Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114, the relevant part of decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. The assessee has made payment for transponder service fees paid to three entities namely: 1. Intel…

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1070/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

…case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1487 of 2018) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia 4 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Satellite Communication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 & Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114, the relevant part of decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. The assessee has made payment for transponder service fees paid to three entities namely: 1. Intel…

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

…case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1487 of 2018) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia 4 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Satellite Communication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 & Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114, the relevant part of decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. The assessee has made payment for transponder service fees paid to three entities namely: 1. Intel…

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1066/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

…case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1487 of 2018) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia 4 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Satellite Communication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 & Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114, the relevant part of decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. The assessee has made payment for transponder service fees paid to three entities namely: 1. Intel…

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

…case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1487 of 2018) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia 4 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Satellite Communication Company Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340 & Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114, the relevant part of decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “The assessee is engaged in the business of marketing advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. The assessee has made payment for transponder service fees paid to three entities namely: 1. Intel…

DCIT (It)-4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1718/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

…Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. that payment made to the non- resident outside India for rendering the services of equipment outside India is not taxable in India. 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 later on reiterated that there is no royalty payment in such cases under the domestic law, that is, section 9(1)(vi), prior to amendment. Thus judicial precedents supported the case of the assessee. Here, the maxim of "lex non cogit ad impossplia, that is, the law of the possibly compelling a person to do somethin…