What is Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 195, Section 9(1)(vi), Section 144C(13), Section 1957, Section 201.

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO (361 ITR 575)

Q: How many judgments cite Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO?

156 judgments on BharatTax cite Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO (361 ITR 575), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 262/MUM/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru

Section 195Section 195(2)

…as to why the said decision of Madras High Court cannot be applied in such cases after observing as under:- “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

United Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 1289/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru

Section 195Section 195(2)

…as to why the said decision of Madras High Court cannot be applied in such cases after observing as under:- “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

M/S. T - 3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…44 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai-Trib.) and Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Vodafone South Ltd. Vs. DDIT (IT) (2015) 53 taxmann.com 441 (Bangalore – Trib.), followed decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Mad). He referred to the definition of ‘royalty’ under Article 12(3) of DTAA between India and USA, which provided right to use or use itself. He stressed that in Indian Tax Laws, the word ‘use’ was missing. 13. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder stressed that no payment was made to Qwest Communications Inc and…

Intech Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bleintec Billing Ireland V. The Assistant Director Of Income –Tax C/O S.R.B.C & Associates Llp (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range 3(1), Scindia House, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai - 400 038 Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan No: Aadca 7890 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Samuel Darse

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Intec Billing Ireland v. The Assistant Director of Income –Tax C/o S.R.B.C & Associates LLP (International Taxation), 14th Floor, The Ruby, Range 3(1), Scindia House, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai - 400 038 Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 PAN No: AADCA 7890 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department by : Shri Samuel Darse Date of Hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (J…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1203/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR

Section 143(3)Section 90

…under:- M/s Sh e ll In fo rm a tio n Te c h n o lo g y In te rn a t i o n a l BV , A .Ys . 9 -1 0 &1 0 -1 1 ) “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR

Section 143(3)Section 90

…under:- M/s Sh e ll In fo rm a tio n Te c h n o lo g y In te rn a t i o n a l BV , A .Ys . 9 -1 0 &1 0 -1 1 ) “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Sprint Commuinications Company Lp, Mumbai

In the result, the above appeals are decided as under:

ITA 5156/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5156/Mum/2009, 569 & 3808/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Ddit(It)-2(1), M/S. Sprint Communications R. No. 120, 1St Floor, Company Lp बनाम/ Scindia House, Ballard Estate, C/O. Sr Batliboi & Co. Cas, Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai-400 038 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aayff 1407 P (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./Co No. 74/Mum/2010 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5156/Mum/2009) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2744/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09) M/S. Sprint Communications Ddit(It)-2(1), R. No. 120, 1St Floor, Company Lp बनाम/ C/O. Sr Batliboi & Co. Cas, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai-400 038 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aayff 1407 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri Samuel Darse Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement Co No.74/M/10 & 2744/M/12 M/S. Sprint Communications Company Lp आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia

Section 234B

…mmunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340 (Del) and DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 382 ITR 114 (Delhi) have ruled in favor of the assessee, whereas the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte. Ltd. v.s ITO [2014] 361 ITR 575 (madras) has ruled against and held that the same would be taxable in India as ‘Royalty’. We understand that the matter is currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for adjudication and we believe that the issue is not likely to attain finality in near future. Given the above and considering that cost of litigation (including consumption…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3593/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri F V Irani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri TS Shivkumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)

…e ; whether the payments made nevertheless remain untaxable in view of the provi sions of the double taxation avoidance agreement." 31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3776/MUM/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Armaity IchhaporiaFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru (Sr.DR)

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…of the Revenue vide order dated 04.02.2015 and 10.02.2015 respectively. 7.2 We note that in coming to the aforesaid decision, this Tribunal has referred the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Private Limited 361 ITR 575. In the said decision of the Tribunal the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of a Asia Satellite Communications was also considered. Thus we note that there is a decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case in which ratio from the Hon’ble Madras High Court has been followed. Now the learned Counsel of the assessee is urging us that t…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 729/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul K Mitra, Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir S Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ed as to why the said judgment of Madras High Court cannot be applied in such cases after observing as under:- “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 3818/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul K Mitra, Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir S Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ed as to why the said judgment of Madras High Court cannot be applied in such cases after observing as under:- “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 5051/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul K Mitra, Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir S Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ed as to why the said judgment of Madras High Court cannot be applied in such cases after observing as under:- “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation I, [2014] 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial diff…