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

Issues it is cited on

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

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…w is therefore entirely 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 IT 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. The Ld.Counsel submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi Tribunal in Asia Satel…