Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether transponder charges and related satellite uplinking payments made to non-residents constituted royalty so as to attract tax deduction at source and consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(i).
Analysis: The payments were examined in the light of the Indo-US DTAA and the domestic definition of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal followed the binding jurisdictional High Court view that amendments expanding the domestic definition of royalty by the Finance Act, 2012 do not automatically alter the meaning of royalty under the DTAA. It was held that treaty terms must be interpreted on their own language, and that transponder capacity or satellite transmission facilities do not amount to use of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment in the sense required for royalty under the treaty. As the sums were not taxable as royalty in the relevant treaty context, no withholding obligation arose and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not stand.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the transponder charges were not treated as royalty under the applicable treaty framework, and the disallowance was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi: A domestic amendment enlarging the definition of royalty cannot be read into a concluded tax treaty unless the treaty itself is correspondingly amended, and transponder capacity payments do not constitute royalty under the treaty definition.