DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc.

9 SOT 100Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#3401 most cited

What is DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc. authority for?

Payment for transponder facility does not constitute royalty if it is not for a secret process and does not make technical knowledge available under a DTAA.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc. · 9 SOT 100 · royalty · DTAA · secret process · transponder fees · use of service · make available · technical knowledge · Article 12 · India-US DTAA

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 12Section 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 139(9) of the Income Tax ActSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 144C of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)(vii)section 206asection 206aasection 35abbuse of equipmentsection 35ddwaiver of loansection 9(l)section 9(l)(vi)section 44bbsection 44bsection 9(1)(vi)

Judgments citing DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc.

Communications Global Network Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri. Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 5(2)

…nt case, there is no “secret process” and the process with the Assessee is available in the public domain. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pan AmSat International Systems Inc (reported in [2006] 9 SOT 100).  Therefore, it is submitted that since the definition of “royalty” is narrower in the DTAA, the same being more beneficial to the Assessee, ought to be applied over the provisions of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (supra); - J&P Coats Ltd v. CIT…

M/S Communications Global Network Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri. Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 5(2)

…nt case, there is no “secret process” and the process with the Assessee is available in the public domain. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pan AmSat International Systems Inc (reported in [2006] 9 SOT 100).  Therefore, it is submitted that since the definition of “royalty” is narrower in the DTAA, the same being more beneficial to the Assessee, ought to be applied over the provisions of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (supra); - J&P Coats Ltd v. CIT…

M/S. Communications Global Network Services Limited, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2218/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri. Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 5(2)

…nt case, there is no “secret process” and the process with the Assessee is available in the public domain. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pan AmSat International Systems Inc (reported in [2006] 9 SOT 100).  Therefore, it is submitted that since the definition of “royalty” is narrower in the DTAA, the same being more beneficial to the Assessee, ought to be applied over the provisions of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (supra); - J&P Coats Ltd v. CIT…

Telefonica De Espana Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 180/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

…Court decision of Vodafone South would have binding effect on the Bangalore Tribunal. 3.5 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) 2. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (DELHI ITAT) 3. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd [2011] 197 Taxman 263 (Delhi) 4. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243 (Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed Bom HC decision in Neo…

M/S. Telefonica De Espana Sa, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2657/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

…Court decision of Vodafone South would have binding effect on the Bangalore Tribunal. 3.5 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) 2. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (DELHI ITAT) 3. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd [2011] 197 Taxman 263 (Delhi) 4. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243 (Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed Bom HC decision in Neo…

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…volves an intellectual property, then the consideration would qualify as royalty. The assessee further submitted the following decisions which were also primarily of the same format as the decision discussed above. • In Pan Anxsat International Systems Inc. (9 SOT 100), of the Hon'ble Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') held that the service fee received from non-resident television channels for use of its transponder to transmit signals to Indian viewers is neither Royalty nor Fees for included services, as no secret formula or process was involved therein • Skycell Communications Limited (251 ITR 53)…

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…volves an intellectual property, then the consideration would qualify as royalty. The assessee further submitted the following decisions which were also primarily of the same format as the decision discussed above. • In Pan Anxsat International Systems Inc. (9 SOT 100), of the Hon'ble Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') held that the service fee received from non-resident television channels for use of its transponder to transmit signals to Indian viewers is neither Royalty nor Fees for included services, as no secret formula or process was involved therein • Skycell Communications Limited (251 ITR 53)…

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 77 of 92 services in as much as these services can be performed by the assessee without any recourse to the service provider.” No agreement to transmit knowledge DCIT vs PanAmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (Delhi) “26.…. the act of "making available" should emanate from the person who renders the technical services and does not take in the capacity or ability of the person to whom the services are rendered to gather, by his own efforts or inquisitiveness, any technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. There should be an agreement or formal understa…

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)

…Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2003) 85 ITD 478 held that, the word “secret” does not qualify the word “process” in the Act. He submitted that, subsequently, in DCIT vs. PanAmSat International Systems Inc. reported in (2006) 9 SOT 100, the Delhi Tribunal held that, ‘process’ should be a 'secret process', for the payment thereof to constitute ‘royalty’ under the DTAA. He submitted that, the issue was then referred to Special Bench of the Tribunal in New Skies Satellite NV vs. ACIT reported in (2009) 121 ITD 1 and Hon’ble Special Bench held that, the term 'secret' appearing in phr…

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)

…Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2003) 85 ITD 478 held that, the word “secret” does not qualify the word “process” in the Act. He submitted that, subsequently, in DCIT vs. PanAmSat International Systems Inc. reported in (2006) 9 SOT 100, the Delhi Tribunal held that, ‘process’ should be a 'secret process', for the payment thereof to constitute ‘royalty’ under the DTAA. He submitted that, the issue was then referred to Special Bench of the Tribunal in New Skies Satellite NV vs. ACIT reported in (2009) 121 ITD 1 and Hon’ble Special Bench held that, the term 'secret' appearing in phr…

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)

…he Delhi Tribunal in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2003) 85 ITD 478 held that the word “secret” does not qualify the word “process” in the Act. Subsequently, in DCIT vs. PanAmSat International Systems Inc. reported in (2006) 9 SOT 100, the Delhi Tribunal held that process should be a 'secret process' for the payment thereof to constitute royalty under the DTAA. The issue was subsequently referred to a Special Bench of the Tribunal in New Skies Satellite NV vs. ACIT reported in (2009) 121 ITD 1 and the Hon’ble Special Bench held that the term 'secret' appearing in phrase 'secret…

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4524/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(3)

…chnical know-how etc. cannot be held to be made available to service recipient where similar services are required by it on an ongoing basis, year after year. • R. R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Ltd (241 CTR 305) • Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. (9 SOT 100) 22. The Assessee also relied on following case laws wherein it is held that the similar services as provided by the Assessee to IHG India are not in the nature of FTS. • Bharti AXA General insurance Co. Ltd (234 ITR 62)AAR • Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR No 850 of 2009) AAR • Invensys Systems Inc. (317 ITR 438) AAR • Ernst & Young (…

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.7 of the appeal

ITA 1313/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhtaj Tv Ltd. Dcit (It)-4(1)(2), C/O. M/S. Suresh Surana & Room No. 1609, 16Th Floor, Vs. Associates Llp, Chartered Air India Building, Accountants, 13Th Floor, Mumbai-400021. Bakhtawar, 229, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabct6542J Appellant Respondent Dcit (It)-4(1)(2), Taj Tv Ltd. Room No. 1609, 16Th Floor, C/O. M/S. Suresh Surana & Vs. Air India Building, Associates Llp, Chartered Mumbai-400021. Accountants, 13Th Floor, Bakhtaware, 229, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabct6542J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Taj TV Ltd. DCIT (IT)-4(1)(2), C/o. M/s. Suresh Surana & Room No. 1609, 16th Floor, Vs. Associates LLP, Chartered Air India Building, Accountants, 13th Floor, Mumbai-400021. Bakhtawar, 229, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AABCT6542J Appellant Respondent DCIT (IT)-4(1)(2), Taj TV Ltd. Room No. 1609, 16th Floor, C/o. M/s. Suresh Surana & Vs. Air India Building, Associates LLP, Chartered Mumbai-400021. Accountants, 13th Floor, Bakhtaware, 229, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AABCT6542J Appellant Respondent A…

DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITAs No

ITA 6326/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.6326/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2009-10) & I.T.A No.6327/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2010-11) DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs M/s Taj TV Ltd C/o M/s Suresh Surana & Associates, 13th Floor, Bakhtawar, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN : AABCT6542J APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A No.6367/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2009-10) & I.T.A No.6366/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2010-11) M/s Taj TV Ltd vs Addl.DIT(IT) -2, Mumbai C/o M/s Suresh Surana & Associates, 13th Floor…

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

ITA 4678/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 40

…: 5536/Mum/2008 ITA No.: 4706/Mum/2009 10. In respect of disallowance of US $ 3,29,966, paid to PanAmSat as Transponder fees, under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Delhi Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. PanAmSat International System (9 SOT 100) itself has held that payment made for transponder facility is considered to be paid for the use of service and not for use of any equipment, therefore, it did not amount to ‘Royalty’. The Hon’ble Tribunal also held that fees paid for Transponder facility does not amount to ‘Royalty’ as it is not for a secret process; or ‘Fees for Included Services…