TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23/- as against Rs.64,16,78,198/- after adding the subscription income twice. This ground has not been pressed at the time of hearing; therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. (iii) Charging of Interest u/s.234B and 234D. These two grounds have been stated to be consequential and therefore, no adjudication is required. 3. Now coming to the only issue of taxability of 'royalty', it has been stated that, this issue is covered by series of the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18. It has been further stated that the ld. DRP has simply stated that the orders of the Tribunal has not been accepted and appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court u/s.260A of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that assessee is a tax resident of Switzerland and TRC has been issued by Cantonal Tax Administration, Zug. It is engaged in providing market research reports on pharmaceutical sector to its customers across the globe at a predetermined subscription price. The assessee company mainly collects process and utilise the data and information, particularly in the fields of medicine and pharmaceuticals for the delivery of reports through online IQVI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e's own case in all the earlier years. This Tribunal in the latest judgement for A.Y.2017-18 vide order dated 10/10/2022 in ITA No.665/Mum/2022 has observed and held as under:- 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA.No.1203/Mum/2021 dated 11.05.2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17 in the immediate previous assessment year held as under: - "10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in IMS AG (now known as IQVIA AG) v/s DCIT, in ITA no.6445/Mum./2016, vide order dated 13.07.2020, for the assessment year 2013-14, while holding that subscription fees received by the assessee is not taxable as Royalty under the provisions of DTAA, observed as under:- "3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. The assessee before us is a company incorporated, and fiscally domiciled, in Switzerland. The assessee company is engaged in providing market research report on pharmaceutical sector to its customers across the world at a predetermined subscription pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 in I.T.A. No. 1773/Mum/2006 and the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings on identical facts in the case of Dun and S.A. Bradstreet Espana In re Authority for Advance Rulings No. 615 of 2003 [2005] 272ITR 99 (AAR)), D and B Europe Authority for Advance Rulings No. 657 of 2005, dated October 27, 2005, and D and B UK Authority for Advance Rulings No. 656 of 2005, dated October 27, 2005. In all these cases the Authority for Advance Rulings held that the sale of very same business information reports by the subsidiaries of Dun and Bradstreet US in Spain, Europe and V. K. to the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 195 of the Act. Though the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings is not binding in the present case, since the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings relates to the very same business information reports imported by the petitioner and no fault in the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings is pointed out, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal." 6. The AAR's decision, which is so concurred with, inter alia st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... think not. The next case relied upon by the Commissioner is also a ruling of the Authority in Ericsson Telephone Corpn. India AB, In re [ 1997] 224ITR 2031. In that case the applicant was a company incorporated in Sweden. It provided, inter alia, services within radio and telecommunication. It entered into contracts with three Indian companies for the introduction of the cellular system of telecommunication in India and opened branch offices in India at New Delhi, Bombay and Madras. The Indian company informed applicant that while making payments under the agreement they would withhold income tax at 55% as provided in the Finance Act, 1995. According to the applicant tax deduction could not have exceeded 5,5% of the gross payments, as the net profit on the contract would not be more 10%, It was, therefore, not a case of whether the amount paid could be termed as fee for technical services. It was admittedly a case of payment of fee for technical services. For the abovementioned reasons, payments made by the DBIS to the applicant for purchases of BIRs do not answer the description of 'royalties' within the meaning of para 3 of article 13 of the treaty. So payments made ....