2023 (7) TMI 1412 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Rules Payments for Telecom Connectivity Services Not Royalty for Singapore Company, Upholds Past Favorable Rulings.

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-3 (1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi

The ITAT allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, a Singapore company, against the AO's orders, which classified payments for telecommunication ... Royalty receipts - payments received for Telecommunication connectivity services - right to use of an equipment and/or use of a process and/ or transfer of rights in a process and/ or imparting of any information - Addition u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under the Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty') - assessee is a company incorporated in Singapore - HELD THAT:-The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 in [2022 (7) TMI 1514 - ITAT DELHI] and for A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 and A.Y. 2014-15 [2020 (10) TMI 604 - ITAT DELHI] and noted that the controversy regarding amendment in the Act being read into the treaty has been settled in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] Thus we allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and direct the AO to delete the additions made on account of 'Royalty - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved: Appeal against orders dated 26.05.2022 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:The appeals were filed by the assessee against the AO's orders alleging that payments received for Telecommunication connectivity services are taxable as Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under the India Singapore Tax Treaty. The assessee, a Singapore company, provides bandwidth services outside India under Global Business Service Agreements. The AO considered the payments as equipment process royalty. The DRP upheld the AO's finding. However, previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's favor for other assessment years were cited, directing the AO to delete the additions. The DRP's decision for the current year was found identical to previous years, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal due to no change in factual matrix and legal proposition.In conclusion, both appeals of the assessee were allowed based on the consistent legal position and factual circumstances.