Telecom undertaking deduction and treaty royalty rules protected the assessee, with only partial transfer pricing adjustment upheld.

The Tribunal held that later NLD/ILD telecom activity was only an of an existing eligible telecommunication undertaking, so deduction under section 80IA could not be proportionately denied; the disallowance was deleted. It also held that payments to foreign operators for data transmission and telecom connectivity were not royalty under the applicable treaty, and retrospective domestic amendments could not enlarge the treaty definition, so no withholding failure arose and the section 40(a)(i) disallowance was deleted. An ad hoc disallowance on office running and maintenance expenses was remanded for factual verification. The transfer pricing adjustment was not sustained in full because the assessee's operating model, agreed remuneration mechanism, and prior-year acceptance could not be ignored without contrary material; only partial adjustment remained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proportionate disallowance of deduction under section 80IA on profits from NLD/ILD services and exclusion of other services income was justified; (ii) whether telecom payments made to foreign operators were chargeable as royalty so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i); (iii) whether the ad hoc disallowance for alleged non-deduction of tax on office running and maintenance expenses required verification; and (iv) whether the transfer pricing adjustment, including rejection of the assessee's TNMM and limited risk model and adoption of the other method, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the proportionate disallowance of deduction under section 80IA on profits from NLD/ILD services and exclusion of other services income was justified.

Analysis: The deduction under section 80IA was already available to the assessee's telecommunication undertaking, and the dispute concerned whether the later NLD/ILD activity constituted a separate new undertaking or only an of the existing eligible business. The Tribunal followed its own earlier orders in the assessee's case and accepted that the factual matrix remained the same, with the telecommunication business having commenced before the sunset date and the later licences not creating a separate undertaking for deduction purposes.

Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether telecom payments made to foreign operators were chargeable as royalty so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i).

Analysis: The payments were for data transmission and telecom connectivity services outside India. The Tribunal applied the jurisdictional High Court view that retrospective amendments to the domestic royalty definition do not expand the scope of the treaty definition, and that such telecom services do not constitute royalty under the applicable tax treaty. As the sums were not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance for alleged non-deduction of tax on office running and maintenance expenses required verification.

Analysis: The assessee asserted that the amount had already been disallowed suo motu in the return computation, and the Revenue sought remand for verification. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual claim and apply the law accordingly.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for verification and was not finally decided on merits.

Issue (iv): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment, including rejection of the assessee's TNMM and limited risk model and adoption of the other method, was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the group's telecom operating model, the inter-company service arrangement, the agreed compensation mechanism, and the benchmarking adopted by the assessee. It held that the assessee's entity-level remuneration structure and the consistent acceptance of the model in earlier years could not be ignored without cogent contrary material. At the same time, the Tribunal accepted only part of the assessee's computation and found that the TPO's approach was overly simplistic in ignoring the agreed mechanism and the commercial structure of the global operations. The adjustment was therefore not sustained in full.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was partly deleted and the issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained substantial relief on the deduction under section 80IA and the royalty-based disallowance, received remand on one ancillary disallowance issue, and secured partial relief on transfer pricing, leaving only limited adjustment to be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

Ratio Decidendi: A telecommunication activity that is only an expansion of an already eligible undertaking does not lose section 80IA benefit merely because later licences are obtained, and telecom data transmission payments are not royalty where the treaty definition cannot be enlarged by retrospective domestic amendment.

---