AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s customer in India is in the nature of 'royalty' within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act and accordingly taxable in India under the IT Act. 3. The lower authorities erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- received by the Appellant from its customer in India is in the nature of 'royalty' within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (to which the Appellant is entitled to) and accordingly taxable in India under the IT Act. 4. The lower authorities erred in holding that the sum received by the Appellant is in respect of services utilised for the purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India. 5. The lower authorities erred in holding that the Appellant failed to produce evidences before them. 6. The lower authorities erred in holding that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act would apply in interpreting the Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Belgium. 7. Without prejudice, the lower authorities erred in holding that the tax determined in the assessment of the Appellant is entirely payable by the Appellant, despite the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. It submitted that even as per the DTAA the amount cannot be taxable unless there is a usage of secret formula by the Hutch. The DRP vide order dated 02.03.2017 upheld the sums received by the assessee from Hutch as royalty and taxable in India, u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of the India Belgium DTAA relying on Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has retrospective effect. The DRP did not decide the applicability of section 9(1)(vii) of the act considering it to be academic in nature. 4. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.10.2017 and held the assessee to be taxable in India. Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Before this Tribunal the assessee raised additional ground vide application dated 16/11/2021, raising following issue: Additional ground of appeal:- "1. That the payments received by the assessee cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as within the meaning of Article 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will not apply to the substantive assessment proceedings of assessee as the applicability of DTAA would have to be examined. He submitted that the decision in Vodafone South Ltd. vs. DDIT(supra) was not concerned with the interpretation of DTAA. It is also the submission of the Ld.Counsel that assessee was not a party to the dispute in case of Vodafone South Ltd. vs. DDIT(supra) and therefore the view taken in Vodafone South Ltd. vs. DDIT(supra) would not be ipso facto applicable to the present assessee. 7. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the view taken by authorities below is therefore entirely based on the amendment made to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by introduction of Explanation 5 and Explanation 6 by 2012. He submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi High Court in Asia Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 held that for a payment to be regarded as 'royalty' under the IT Act or under the DTAA, there has to "use" of the intellectual property by the payer. It is submitted that the Explanation 5 seeks to treat any payment as royalty, whether or not the payer uses the process. The Ld.Counsel submitted that prior to 2012, the Delhi Tribunal in Asia Satell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. DDIT(supra), relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte.Ltd. vs. ITO reported in (2014) 361 ITR 575, to hold that the consideration paid by Vodaforn South, falls within the ambit of 'process' and therefore amounts to Royalty as per Explanation 5 &6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. He submitted that in a later decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DDIT vs.New Skies Satellite BV reported in (2016) 68 taxmann.com 8 has held that the judgment in case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte.Ltd. vs. ITO(supra) does not reflect the correct law on interpretation of DTAA. 10. The Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following observation by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DDIT vs.New Skies Satellite BV(supra): "31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd v. ITO, International Taxation [2014] 361 ITR 575, the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA."" 27.4. It is also relatively well settled that definition in the domestic law or amendment thereto cannot apply to interpretation terms of a DTAA. Particularly when there is a definition of that term in the treaty. The Bombay High Court in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft observed as under in this regard: "....... by an unilateral amendment it is not possible for one nation which is party to an agreement to tax income which otherwise was not subject to tax. Such income would not be subject to tax under the expression "laws in force". ..." 27.5. The Delhi High Court in New Skies Satellite BV, after quoting the Bombay High Court further explained the principle in the following words: "41. This Court is of the view that no amendment to the Act, whether retrospective or prospective can be read in a manner so as to extend in operation to the terms of an international treaty. In other words, a clarificatory or declaratory amendment, much less one which may seek to overcome an unwelcome judicial interpretation of law, cannot be al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice to the other Party. The Parties may notify each other of any such modifications to their respective prices / service areas by an electronic message In case there is a failure in electronic message service or delivery failure of the sent electronic message then the notifying party shall notify the same through fax. Similarly the other Party shall acknowledge their acceptance of such new prices by an electronic message. In case there is a failure in electronic message service or delivery failure of the sent electronic message then the other party shall send their acceptance through fax. If the receiving Party does not confirm acceptance as aforesaid within seven (7) days from the receipt of the first transmittal, and continues to send traffic, such Party's consent to such new prices / service areas shall be deemed given, Further, if at any point of time the prices / service areas remain undetermined due to disagreement by either Party or for any other reason, then in such case and under such circumstances the Party initiating such modification may suspend the Carrier Service till the time such prices / service areas are finally settled and agreed between the Parties. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature. 14. The Ld.Counsel taxability of services fees received by assessee submitted as under: I Whether payment received by assessee could be considered as Royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2, 5 & 6 of the Act ? The Ld.AO and DRP held the payment received to be 'Royalty' as they are of the view that there is use of process by Hutch in terms of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, r.w.Expl. 5 & 6. The term "Process" occurs under clause (i), (ii) and (iii) to Explanation 2 to Section 9(vi). It reads as under:- 'Explanation 2.: For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic register. The definition covers both payments made under a license and compensation which a person would be obliged to pay for fraudulently copying or infringing the right." 17. He thus submitted that the word "process" must also refer to specie of intellectual property, applying the rule of, ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs.Bharti Cellular reported in (2011) 330 ITR 239. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following observation by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra). "10.The term (royalty' normally connotes the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing which may be either physical or intellectual property or thing. The exclusivity of the right in relation to the thing for which royalty is paid should be with the grantor of that right. Mere passing of information concerning the design of machine which is tailor-made to meet the requirement of a buyer does not by itself amount to transfer of any right of exclusive user, so as to render the payment made therefor being regarded as royalty". He thus submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns Singapore Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO(supra). He submitted that in that case, the Indian payer company obtained 'leased lines' on hire basis under a contract from non-resident Verizon Communication. When an Indian company takes leased line on hire, then it can be said that it had 'used' it as observed by Hon'ble Madras High Court therein. He submitted that in present facts of the case, the assessee has neither leased nor has given on hire its network to Hutch. Therefore it cannot be said that Hutch has 'used' the network belonging to assessee. Therefore, reliance of the Ld.AO on the said case law is factually distinguishable. 21. He referred to the commentary form Prof. Klaus Vogel's Commentary on Double Taxation Convention, wherein 'Secrete formulae or process' is defined as under: Secret formulae or processes: This covers Know-how in the narrower sense of the term viz., all business, secrets of a commercial or industrial nature. In most of the countries, they enjoy at least relative protection or are capable of being protected. That is why Article 12(2) very properly use, in connection with such formulae, etc., the criterion 'right to use', which is pertine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lause reads as follows : "(iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trademark or similar property;" It was not disputed before us on behalf of the assessee that the nature of the activity carried on by it is the same as in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (supra). If that is so, we have to hold, respectfully following the order of the co-ordinate Bench, that there is a "process" involved in the activity carried on by the assessee before us. In Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) it was further held that the word "secret" appearing in clause (iii) above qualifies only the word "formula" but not the word "process" and therefore even if the process involved in the operation of the transponder is in the public domain and no longer a secret known only to a few, the payment for the process would still be taxable as royalty. The reason or logic given in paragraph 6.18 of the order by the Tribunal to hold that the word "secret" does not qualify the word "process" is that "there is no comma after the use of the word 'secret' till the end of clause (iii) and if the intention has been to apply the word '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y with USA. From the article quoted above, it may be seen that there is a comma after the words "secret formula or process" which indicates that both the words "formula" and "process" are qualified by the word "secret". The requirement thus under the treaty is that both the formula and the process, for which the payment is made, should be a secret formula or a secret process in order that the consideration may be characterised as royalty. We do agree with the argument of the Special Counsel for the Department, on the strength of the several authorities cited by him, that normally punctuation by itself cannot control the interpretation of a statutory provision and in fact the learned counsel for the assessee did not seriously dispute the proposition. However, the punctuation-the use of the comma-coupled with the setting and words surrounding the words under consideration, do persuade us to hold that under the treaty even the process should be a secret process so that the payment therefor, if any, may be assessed in India as royalty. The Tribunal in Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) have recognized that all the items referred to in clause (iii) of Explanation 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e concerned with the route, equipment, process or network elements used by the assessee in the course of rendering such services. He further submitted that the assessee and Hutch provides connecting, transit and termination services to each other on a reciprocal basis, and neither of the parties shall have any rights in the equipments or in the network of each other. He emphasised that the charges under the agreement are also levied for the services provided under the agreement, based on the actual call duration and number of calls successfully delivered by the parties to other parties. It is thus submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the agreement are not for renting, hiring, letting or leasing out of any of the network elements or resources to the other parties or for rendering telecommunication services on a reciprocal basis. He further submitted that identical issue came up before Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel vs.ITO (TDS) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. He submitted that the issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. He submitted that the Tribunal therein, on applying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r technical services arise, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect of which, or the contract under which, the royalties or fees for technical services are paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base. In such case, the provisions of Article 7 or Article 14, as the case may be, shall apply. 5. Royalties and fees for technical services shall be deemed to arise in a Contracting State when the payer is that State itself, a political sub-division, a local authority or a resident of that State. Where, however, the person paying the royalties or fees for technical services, whether he is a resident of a Contracting State or not, has in a Contracting State a permanent establishment or a fixed base in connection with which the liability to make the payments was incurred and the payments are borne by such permanent establishment or fixed base, then the royalties or fees for technical services shall be deemed to arise in the State in which the permanent establishment or fixed base is situated. 6. Where, by re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpression in article 12(3) (referred to at para 7.1 supra) is 'for the use of or the right to use any copyright, patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.' It is thus clear that formula/process are part of the same group and the adjective 'secret' governs both. The reasoning of ITAT in the aforementioned case, based on the absence of comma after process and the impact of the immediately following word, 'trade mark', does not hold good in view of the clear language in article 12(3) of the Treaty. It has been so pointed out very rightly by another Bench of ITAT in Panamsat International Systems Inc.v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1796 (Delhi) of 2001 dated 11-8-2006] at paragraph 6.18. Going by such interpretation, it cannot be held that there is, in the instant case, the use of or the right to use a secret process. In fact it is nobody's case that any secret process is involved here and the applicant makes use of it. The use of secret process is alien to the minds of contracting parties. Incidentally, we may mention that it was brought to our notice that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent made, therefore, should be held to be a royalty. The learned advocate for the assessee contended last that the fact that payment was being made to the assessee by the Indian company of a fixed percentage of the net selling price of the products manufactured and sold by the Indian company would not make any difference to the quality and character of payment. The measure or method of payment cannot determine the nature of the transaction involved. 15. The learned advocate for the revenue contended on the other hand that on a proper construction of the agreement between the assessee and the Indian company it would appear clearly that the assessee had at its disposal information regarding working methods and manufacturing processes of its various products which was being made available by the assessee to the Indian company. It would appear from clause (4) of the agreement that the information disclosed by the assessee to the Indian company under the agreement was meant solely for the use of the Indian company. The said clause further recorded that such information was being disclosed by the assessee in confidence to the Indian company and would not become the property of the Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was contended by the taxpayer that as the payment was being made, inter alia, for right to use the invention in the future a part of the said amount was capital receipt in his hands and could not be taxed. The matter was finally disposed of in the House of Lords. The facts found by the General Commissioners that large stocks of grenades were still in existence after manufacture and that the amount of the award attributable to future use was negligible were accepted and it was held that the taxpayer had been correctly charged to income-tax. This decision was cited for the following observations made by Bomer, LJ. in the Court of Appeal which were relied on by the revenue. "A patentee has, of course, a monopoly, and that monopoly, which is a right of preventing other people utilising his invention, is a capital asset in his hands. He may exploit that capital asset in either or both of the following ways: he can himself exercise his invention for profit, or he can grant licences to others to do so on payment of royalty. The profit he derives by exercising the invention himself or the profit he derives from the royalty are profits and gains within the meaning of Schedule D, notw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legally protected property interest in a secret process, special knowledge or skill can indeed ripen into a form of property in the fields of commerce and industry, as in copyright, trademarks and designs and patents, and where such property is parted with for money what is received can be, but will not necessarily be, a receipt on capital account. But imparting 'know-how' for reward is not like this, any more than a teacher sells his knowledge or skill to his pupil.... The other point is that 'know-how', though very naturally looked upon as part of the capital equipment of a trade, is a fixed asset only by analogy and, as it were, by metaphor. The nature of receipts from it depends essentially, I think, upon the transaction out of which they arise and the context in which they are received." (c ) P.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC): This decision of the Supreme Court was cited for the proposition laid down as follows: ". . . It may also be stated as a general rule that the fact that the amount involved was large or that it was periodic in character have no decisive bearing upon the matter. A payment may even be described as 'pay', 'remu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the various types of payments that the assessee has to make seem to be closely related to the assessee's manufacturing processes of 'Simple' products. In other words, these payments are intimately linked up with the manufacturing activities of the assessee and not with the capital values of the assets that the assessee would require. They cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be the purchase price of these assets. It is true that the assessee's foreign principals would be imparting their 'know-how' to the assessee for a reward : but that is assessee's foreign principals were merely supplying technical information to enable the assessee to carry on business in terms of the agreement." (p. 257) (f ) CIT v. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529 (Bom.): In this case, it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on facts that it was possible to make available know-how by one person to another on the basis of a licence and the same would be a method of carrying on a business by the person who has the know-how. The Court quoted with approval the observation of Romer, LJ., in the case of Handley Page (supra) which has been noted earlier ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also in foreign law on international commercial agreements. (h) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 493 (Cal.): In this case the assessee was a non-resident English company and had a network of subsidiaries and associate companies all over the world. The assessee maintained technical research establishments in the U.K. from which latest information, processes and invention relating to goods manufactured by the assessee were communicated to its subsidiaries and associate companies. Under an agreement entered into by and between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, the latter agreed to pay to the assessee a proportionate part of the cost and expenses including salaries and research and development expenditure incurred by the assessee for acquisition, discovery and development of information, processes and invention. The Government of India permitted the Indian subsidiary to pay to the assessee research contribution to be paid on the volume of sales by the Indian company subject to a ceiling. The question arose whether the amounts paid by the Indian subsidiary to the assessee were payments of or in the nature of royalty or the same were merely being reimbursement of ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that the amounts described as commission in the agreement between the assessee and the Indian company were in the nature of royalties and fees and were entitled to the exemption provided by the said rules of the said Act. This Court considered the dictionary meaning of the terms 'royalty' and 'fee'. It was observed that the 'nomenclature' used by the parties which were not defined in the statute were required to be construed on the basis of commercial principles and concepts as understood generally by people in trade or commerce. The nomenclature given by the parties would not be conclusive or decisive of the matter. (j ) Citizen Watch Co. Ltd. v. IAC [1984] 148 ITR 774 (Kar.): This judgment is that of a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court delivered in a writ petition. In this case the assessee, a non-resident company, incorporated in Japan entered into a collaboration agreement with the Government of India under which the assessee agreed to supply technical know-how to the Government for establishment of a modern watch factory in India. The Government set up a company known as Hindusthan Machine Tools Ltd. wholly owned by the Government and tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on furnished by the assessee as its own property indicates further that the assessee intended and treated the information to be supplied by it as its own property. Under the agreement the assessee would be entitled to utilise and use such information for the period of the agreement. 19. From the dictionary meaning of the term 'royalty', it appears that the said term connotes payments periodic or at a time for user by one person of certain exclusive rights belonging to another person. The examples of such exclusive rights are rights in the nature of a patent, mineral rights or right in respect of publications. It appears to us that the person who grants the user of the exclusive right might have the sanction of law which guarantees the exclusiveness. Such sanction may be obtained by taking out a patent in respect of an invention. In other cases, such exclusive right would arise from the ownership of mineral rights, protected by the laws relating to property. In respect of books and publication the exclusive right of the author is protected and sanctioned by the laws of copyright. 28. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs.New Skie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 came up for construction. By this section whoever "manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes" a drug without a license is liable for punishment. In holding that mere stocking shall not amount to an offence under the section, the Supreme Court pointed out the presence of comma after "manufactures for sale" and "sells"and the absence of any comma after "stocks" was indicative of the fact "stocks" was to be read along with "for sale" and not in a manner so as to be divorced from it, an interpretation which would have been sound had there been a comma after the word "stocks". It was therefore held that only stocking for the purpose of sale would amount to an offence but not mere stocking. 57. However, the question, which then arises, is as follows. How is the court to decide whether a provision is carefully punctuated or not? The test- to decide whether a statute is carefully (read consciously) punctuated or not- would be to see what the consequence would be had the section been punctuated otherwise. Would there be any substantial difference in the import of the section if it were not punctuated the way it actually i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry on Article 12, which reads as under: '9.1 Satellite operators and their customers (including broadcasting and telecommunication enterprises) frequently enter into transponder leasing agreements under which the satellite operator allows the customer to utilize the capacity of a satellite transponder to transmit over large geographical areas. Payments made by customers under typical transponder leasing agreements are made for the use of the transponder transmitting capacity and will not constitute royalties under the definition of paragraph 2; these payments are not made in consideration for the use of, or right to use, property, or for information, that is referred to in the definition (they cannot be viewed, for instance, as payments for information or for the use of, or right to use, a secret process since the satellite technology is not transferred to the customer). As regards treaties that include the leasing of industrial, commercial or scientific (ICS) equipment in the definition of royalties, the characterization of the payment will depend to a large extent on the relevant contractual arrangements. Whilst the relevant contracts often refer to the lease of a transpond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oresaid commentary of OECD as well as Klaus Vogel only on the ground that it is not safe to rely upon the same. However, what is ignored is that when the technical terms used in the DTAA are the same which appear in Section 9(1)(vi), for better understanding all these very terms, OECD commentary can always be relied upon. The Apex Court has emphasized so in number of judgments clearly holding that the well-settled internationally accepted meaning and interpretation placed on identical or similar terms employed in various DTAAs should be followed by the Courts in India when it comes to construing similar terms occurring in the Indian Income Tax Act. . . . ** ** ** 78. There are judgments of other High Courts also to the same effect. (a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co., [139 ITR 806 (Guj.)] at Pages 820-822. (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP)] at pages 156-157. (c ) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521] at pages 527 & 538-539." 59. On a final note, India's change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot be a fact that influences the interpret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective, whichever date is later." He submitted that the above MFN clause will apply where India enters into DTAA with a third country, being an OECD member that comes into force after 01/01/1990. 31. The Ld.Counsel submitted that India entered into DTAA with Hungary, which is an OECD county in 1986, which was replaced by the DTAA entered into in 2003. The new DTAA between India and Hungary came into force in 2005. Thus as per the MFN clause Article 12 of the India Hungary DTAA would apply as it satisfies the taxation at a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or the scope provided for in India Belgium DTAA. Article 12(3)(a) of the India Hungary DTAA reads as under: 3. (a) The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films and films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or transmission by satellite, cable, optic fibre or similar technology, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia. 34. In support of the Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions of International Courts: * Decision by South African High Court in case of ABC Proprietary Ltd.vs. Commissioner of South African Revenue Services, case no. 14287 dated 12/06/2019. * Decision by Dutch Tax Court, High Court and Supreme Court, in case No. 17/04584 dated 18/01/2019 Based on the above detailed submissions, the Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee was not liable to deduct tax in India. The Ld.CIT.DR at the outset submitted that the disallowance has been made as Royalty and therefore applicability if FTS need not be touched upon. 35. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR submitted the following in a written submission. "May it please Your Honours In the present case filed by the assessee, the Grounds of Appeal as raised by the assessee has been broadly categorised into the following headings for A.Y: 2012- 13 and D.R.submissions thereon. (1) The Ld. AO erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act in the case of the appellant. Submission: It was found by the Ld.AO from the submissions filed by Vodafone South Ltd., that an amount of Rs.6,87,13,119/- was paid during the A.Y: 2008-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to use of process was already chargeable to tax as royalty. Further, the argument of the assessee that the assessee being a resident of Belgium is covered by the beneficial provisions of India- Belgium DTAA and accordingly, could not be taxed under the provisions of the Act, has been held to be a Royalty both under the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as the DTAA and hence, the Hon'ble DRP rejected the ground. I agree with the decision of the Hon'ble DRP and the same may be upheld. Other than Transfer Pricing related. (3) The lower authorities erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. Submission: Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act are consequential in nature and it is automatic and it is as per specific provisions of the Act and the same may be retained. Conclusion : In view of the submissions made above, examination of submissions made by the assessee, the order of the Ld.A.O, and Hon'ble DRP, Bangalore are not erroneous and not bad in law. The assessee's appeal may be dismissed. Prayer : In the wake of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed to dismiss the appeal of the assessee/appellant and any other....