TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 28-2-2022 - SHRI OMPRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) For the Revenue : Mr. S.N. Kabra , DR For the Assessee : Mr. Nimesh Vora, AR ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the two separate orders, each dated 16.09.2020, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2017-18 in relation to applicability of withholding tax on transponder service fees paid by the assessee. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances and therefore both these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o account that the term 'process' is not defined in the relevant DTAA and hence its meaning has to be derived from the domestic law of India? 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of marketing/advertising air time of different television channels, distribution of these channels etc. During the year under consideration, the assessee made payment of transponder service fees to following entities: 1. Intelsat Corporation, USA (Intelsat) 2. Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing, UK (IGSM) 3. MEAST Satellite System, Malaysia (MEASAT) 2.1 The assessee applied for an order u/s 195(2) of the Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for nil withholding tax certificate on the payment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the term process has to be imposed from the Act. Thus, the payment made for transmission by satellite is a royalty even under the tax treaty. The reference to decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made by the applicant has not been accepted by the department and the SLP has been preferred in this case. Also, the orders passed earlier, in the case of the applicant treating the transponder services fee as royalty income has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT. 2.2 Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held those payments as royalty and directed the assessee to withhold the tax as per provisions of the Act. 3. On further appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Royalty as per DTAA also. 6. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that identical payments made for transponder services has been held by the Tribunal in ITA No. 523/M/2021, 1068/M/2021, 1072/M/2021, 1063/M/2021 and 1064/M/2021 as not liable for withholding tax. 7. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant materials on record. The issue in dispute in these both appeal iswhether the transponder charges paid by the assessee to three entities listed above is in the nature of the royalty and liable for withholding tax. In respect of the three above listed entities, the Tribunal (supra) has held as under: 9. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the issue in disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to section 9(1) (vi) of the Act. 10. In view of binding precedent of the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court followed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respective impugned orders,we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute relevant to the orders of Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in impugned orders. Grounds raised by the Revenue in these appeals are accordingly dismissed. 7.1 The issue being identical, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/02/2022. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
