M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. It was also held that alternatively, the payments can also be considered for the use of process provided by the taxpayer and therefore, royalty under the Act. The Hon’ble Court also held that even if the payment is not treated as one for the use of the equipment

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

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. It was also held that alternatively, the payments can also be considered for the use of process provided by the taxpayer and therefore, royalty under the Act. The Hon’ble Court also held that even if the payment is not treated as one for the use of the equipment

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

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.

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. He submitted that in a later decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DDIT vs.New Skies Satellite BV reported in (2016) 68

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

68, 205, 1299/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A Nos. 69, 191/Bang/2014, 559, 881/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.387/Bang/2017 Page 10 of 331 9. The AO further observed that section 9 of the Act deals with the income deemed to accrue or arise in India and as per section 9(1)(vi

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi)\nPage 10 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17\n(Bombay)\n6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243\n(Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed\nBom HC decision in Neo Sports

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi)\nPage 10 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17\n(Bombay)\n6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243\n(Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed\nBom HC decision in Neo Sports

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

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

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act does not in any manner alter the taxability of the receipts in the Assessee’s hands. It is submitted that once the conditions of ‘use of’ or ‘right to use’ are not satisfied, Explanations 5 and 6 cannot be pressed into service.  In any event, Explanation 5 has no application

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

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

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act does not in any manner alter the taxability of the receipts in the Assessee’s hands. It is submitted that once the conditions of ‘use of’ or ‘right to use’ are not satisfied, Explanations 5 and 6 cannot be pressed into service.  In any event, Explanation 5 has no application

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

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

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act does not in any manner alter the taxability of the receipts in the Assessee’s hands. It is submitted that once the conditions of ‘use of’ or ‘right to use’ are not satisfied, Explanations 5 and 6 cannot be pressed into service.  In any event, Explanation 5 has no application

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1-6-1976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1-6-1976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1-6-1976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1-6-1976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1-6-1976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014 & 18 to 23/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 2328, 2335 to 2339/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 46 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1-6-1976. 12. That the learned CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that there cannot be retrospective default in the matter