Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA INC.,TEXAS vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth ()

…galore - Trib.) 6. Al Telekom Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. DCIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 155 39-59 (Bangalore-Trib) 7. DCIT v. Orange (formerly known as France Telecom) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 186 60-74 (Bangalore-Trib.) 8. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO(TDS) [2016] 178 TTJ 708 (Delhi-Trib.) 75-121 9. Vodafone Idea Ltd v. DCIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 440 (Mumbai - Trib) 122-164 10. DCIT(IT) v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. [2023] LT.A. No. 2866/Mum/2022 (Mumbai- 165-206 Trib.) 11. DCIT(IT) v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. [2019] LT.A. No.6331 to 6334/Mum/2018 207-227 (Mumbai-Trib.) 12. PCCW Global Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] IT(IT)A N…

DCIT-5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\n\n14\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018 & Ors. (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16)\nVodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. A…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\n\n15\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018 & Ors. (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16)\nVodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\n\n15\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018 & Ors. (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16)\nVodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT HQ (JUDL.) TO CIT-14, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

…r the definition of 'royalty' which includes\npayment for use or right to use a process whether industrial, commercial or scientific\n(ICS equipment). The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO, [2016] 178 TTJ 708, wherein it was held that payments\nmade to foreign telecom operators for interconnect usage charges does not fall within\nthe ambit of the definition of 'royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act or as per the treaties.\nFurther, the ld. AR contended that the amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) to Explanation 5\nand 6 apply retrospectively and not in assessee'…

OWENS CORNING ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX _(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…yalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it has been held that in order to receive a royalty in respect of allowing the usage or right to use any property including an intellectual property, the owner thereof must have an exclusive right over such property. We note that the technology for manufacture of glass fibre including the use of bushing has been provided by OCNLIC a Dutc…

DIALOG AXIATA PLC,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…arges are not chargeable to tax as 'royalty'. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s. Telefonica UK Limited vs. Dy. CIT (in ITA No. 771/Mum/2023 & 772/Mum/2023 vice order dated 22.09.2023), Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs ITO 178 TTJ 708 (Del-Trib.), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 191 TTJ 393 (Del-Trib.), Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC), New Skies Satellite NV vs ADIT (2009) (126 TTJ 1) (Delhi Tribunal) and Vodafone South Ltd. vs. Dy. DIT (supra) which on identical facts has held in favour of the assessee. 8. The…

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

…Act, the income earned by the Assessee on account of roaming charges is not chargeable to tax in India. d. In support of the contention put before the Assessing Officer, the Assessee relied on the orders of the Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO (178 TTJ 708) (Delhi Tribunal), Interroute Communications Limited v DDIT M/s.Telefonica UK Ltd [2016] 68 taxmann.com 160 (Mumbai - Tribunal) and M/s WNS North America Inc. (2012) (ITA No 8621/Mum/2010) (Mumbai Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has decided similar issue and has held that IUC/leased line charges cannot be brought to tax as "royalty" under the Act…

TELEFONICA UK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TAX), RANGE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

…Act, the income earned by the Assessee on account of roaming charges is not chargeable to tax in India. d. In support of the contention put before the Assessing Officer, the Assessee relied on the orders of the Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO (178 TTJ 708) (Delhi Tribunal), Interroute Communications Limited v DDIT M/s.Telefonica UK Ltd [2016] 68 taxmann.com 160 (Mumbai - Tribunal) and M/s WNS North America Inc. (2012) (ITA No 8621/Mum/2010) (Mumbai Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has decided similar issue and has held that IUC/leased line charges cannot be brought to tax as "royalty" under the Act…

OWENS CORNING INC.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 376/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) Vs. DCIT(International Owens Corning Inc. C/o. Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. Tax), Circle-3(2)(2) 7th Floor, Alpha Building 16th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Air India Building Mumbai-400 076. Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAACO3242R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sandeep Bhalla Department by Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Date of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.05.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assess…

OWENS CORNING INC.,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE--3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 2042/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2019-20) Vs. DCIT(International Owens Corning Inc. C/o. Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. Tax), Circle-3(2)(2) 7th Floor, Alpha Building 16th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Air India Building Mumbai-400 076. Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAACO3242R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah Department by Ms. Kanupriya Damor Date of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :-…

M/S OWENS COMING INC,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT(INTL TAX) CIRCLE 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…yalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it has been held that in order to receive a royalty in respect of allowing the usage or right to use any property including an intellectual property, the owner thereof must have an exclusive right over such property. We note that the technology for manufacture of glass fibre including the use of bushing has been provided by OCNLIC a Dutc…

OWENS CORNING INC. ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAX)CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…oyalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thng. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it has been held that in order to receive a royalty in respect of allowing the usage or right to property including an intellectual property, the owner thereof must have an right over such property. We note that the technology for manufacture of glass fibre including the use of bushing has been provided by OCNLIC a Dutch Company royalty…

OWENS-CORNING INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 7582/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4773/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

…yalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it has been held that in order to receive a royalty in respect of allowing the usage or right to use any property including an intellectual property, the owner thereof must have an exclusive right over such property. We note that the technology for manufacture of glass fibre including the use of bushing has been provided by OCNLIC a Dutc…