TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue, is directed against impugned order dated 27th January 2005, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXI, Mumbai. Ground no.1, reads as follows:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the payment towards live telecast of the events are not royalty payments." 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are mutatis mutandis similar to those considered and decided by the Tribunal in the aforenoted case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The impugned order, being in conformity with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (supra), does not require any interfer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise in India under art. 12(7) of the treaty since the payer (i.e. assessee) is not a resident of India. As per the first limb of art. 12(7) of the treaty, royalties cannot arise in India, since the payer is not a resident of India. Such royalties under the first limb of art. 12(7) of the treaty arise in Singapore since the payer (i.e. the assessee) is a resident of Singapore. The second limb of ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged RE of the assessee in India (i.e. SET India), the economic link is entirely with the assessee's head office in Singapore. Thus, the payments to GCC cannot be said to have been incurred "in connection" with the appellant's RE in India (i.e. SET India). Further, the alleged .PE in India (i.e. SET India) was also not involved in any way with the acquisition of the right to broadcast the crick....