TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged:- (i) Disallowance of Subscription income received by the assessee for providing access to its online database in the nature of royalty u/s.9 (1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 12(3) of the India-Switzerland DTAA of Rs.42,71,17,413/-. (ii) Further, assessee has also challenged that the ld. AO has erred in computing total income at Rs.106,91,78,623/- as against Rs.64,16,78,198/- after adding the subscription income twice. This ground has not been pressed at the time of hearing; therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. (iii) Charging of Interest u/s.234B and 234D. These two grounds have been stated to be consequential and therefore, no adjudication is required. 3. Now coming to the only issue of taxability of royalty , it has been stated that, this issue is covered by series of the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18. It has been further stated that the ld. DRP has simply stated that the orders of the Tribunal has not been accepted and appeal has been filed before the Hon ble High Court u/s.260A of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that assessee is a tax resident of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment proceedings from A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16, the ld. DRP has upheld the order of the ld. AO treating that subscription income received by the company is in the nature of royalty u/s.9(1)(vi) and also under Article 12(3) of the tax treaty. After detailed discussion, the ld. AO has held the subscription fees taxable as royalty in India. 8. We find that this issue had come up for consideration in assessee s own case in all the earlier years. This Tribunal in the latest judgement for A.Y.2017-18 vide order dated 10/10/2022 in ITA No.665/Mum/2022 has observed and held as under:- 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case in ITA.No.1203/Mum/2021 dated 11.05.2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17 in the immediate previous assessment year held as under: - 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in IMS AG (now known as IQVIA AG) v/s DCIT, in ITA no.6445/Mum./2016, vide order dated 13.07.2020, for the assessment year 2013 14, while holding that subscription fees received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source and accordingly passed an order under section 195 read with section 201 of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed under section 195 read with section 201 of the Act by following its decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 in I.T.A. No. 1773/Mum/2006 and the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings on identical facts in the case of Dun and S.A. Bradstreet Espana In re Authority for Advance Rulings No. 615 of 2003 [2005] 272ITR 99 (AAR)), D and B Europe Authority for Advance Rulings No. 657 of 2005, dated October 27, 2005, and D and B UK Authority for Advance Rulings No. 656 of 2005, dated October 27, 2005. In all these cases the Authority for Advance Rulings held that the sale of very same business information reports by the subsidiaries of Dun and Bradstreet US in Spain, Europe and V. K. to the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 195 of the Act. Though the decision of the Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforementioned ruling of the Authority is distinguishable on facts. If a group of companies collects information about the historical places and places of interest for tourists in each country and all informations are maintained on a central computer which is accessible to each constituent of the Group in each country, can a supply of such information electronically on payment of price be treated as royalty or fee for technical services ? We think not. The next case relied upon by the Commissioner is also a ruling of the Authority in Ericsson Telephone Corpn. India AB, In re [ 1997] 224ITR 2031. In that case the applicant was a company incorporated in Sweden. It provided, inter alia, services within radio and telecommunication. It entered into contracts with three Indian companies for the introduction of the cellular system of telecommunication in India and opened branch offices in India at New Delhi, Bombay and Madras. The Indian company informed applicant that while making payments under the agreement they would withhold income tax at 55% as provided in the Finance Act, 1995. According to the applicant tax deduction could not have exceeded 5,5% of the gross payments, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ets the relief accordingly. 10. No other issues were pressed before us. In any event, the other points raised in the appeal were in the nature of consequential levies. Once the main addition itself is deleted, all these issues are rendered academic. 11. We further find that similar findings were also rendered by the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in IMS AG (now known as IQVIA AG) v/s DCIT, in ITA no.7291/Mum./2017, vide order dated 13.07.2020, for the assessment year 2014 15. The learned Departmental Representative could not show any reason to deviate from the aforesaid orders and no change in facts and law was alleged in the relevant assessment year. The issue arising in the present appeal is recurring in nature and has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for preceding assessment years. Thus, respectfully following the orders passed by the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case cited supra, we uphold the plea of the assessee and delete the impugned addition in respect of subscription fees received by the assessee. As a result, ground nos. 1(1) to 1(4), raised in asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
