AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the act in case of Vodafone South Ltd. The assessee in all the three appeals has challenged the reopening of assessment and the grounds raised on legal issue as well as on merits are identical for all the years under consideration. 3. For the sake of convenience, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009- 10 are reproduced as under: 4. The assessee has also filed a submission dated 17.08.2023 wherein a chart regarding grounds that are pressed / not pressed has been listed for the years under consideration. For the sake of convenience, the same is scanned and reproduced as under: 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 Assessee is a non-resident company having headquarters at Singapore. Assessee provides services in the field of telecommunication outside India and provides ci2ci, sea-bone and wholesale voice interconnect for voice carriers to various companies. During the years under consideration, assessee had provided the above telecom services to Vodafone South Ltd. an Indian company as a part of the international long distance telecom services for which assessee had necessary network. The assessee had entered into an agreement with the Indian compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is further submitted that Explanation 5 and 6 do not override the DTAA between India and Singapore. Hence, the subject payment received from Vodafone and Bharti Airtel is not taxable as 'royalty' as per DTAA. It is submitted that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Vodafone reversed the ITAT judgment on this point. The substantial questions of law 2,3 and 4 in the judgment of Vodafone by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has answered the question regarding the IUC charges not amounting to 'royalty'. 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR also submitted that there is No "use of process" or any "use of equipment". Hence, the entire assumption of "process royalty" / "equipment royalty" does not arise in the case of the assessee. 7.4 The Ld.AR submitted that the provision apparently reads "secret formula or process", and hence the process has to be a "secret process" as held by Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited [2016] 67 taxmann.com 223 (Delhi ITAT). 7.5 Further, it is submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications was been dissented by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived by the assessee. We refer to 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, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property;' 9.2.1 The term "process" used under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) in the definition of 'royalty' does not imply any 'process' which is publicly available. The term "process" occurring under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) means a "process" which is an item ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court in case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2000) 243 ITR 459 wherein Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "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". 9.2.7 It is an admitted fact that there is no transfer of any intellectual property rights or any exclusive rights that has been granted by the assessee to the service recipients for using such intellectual property. Therefore Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) cannot be invoked. 9.2.8 Further we note that by Finance Act, 2012, Explanation 5 & 6 were added with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 which reads as under:- "Explanation 5: For the removal of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....man 418. 9.2.11 The above decisions, lay down that, in order to satisfy 'use or right to use', the control and possession of right, property or information should be with payer. 9.2.12 In the decision of Authority For Advance Ruling, in case of Cable & Wireless Networks India(P.)Ltd., In re(supra), a similar issue was considered wherein Cable & Wireless Networks India(P.)Ltd was a company incorporated in India part of Cable & Wireless Group of companies. Cable & Wireless Networks India(P.)Ltd., was engaged in providing international long distance and domestic long distance telecommunication services in India. As per the agreement Cable & Wireless Networks India(P.)Ltd., would provide the Indian leg of service of using its own network and equipments and network of other domestic operators. Similarly, the international leg of services would be provided by the UK group company using its international infrastructure and equipments. The Cable & Wireless Networks India(P.)Ltd., sought for advance ruling in respect of nature of payments made by Cable & Wireless Networks India(P.)Ltd., to the UK Group company, whether the payment is taxable as 'royalty' or 'FTS' under section 9(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas the phrase 'right to use' implies the existence of such control. Even in a case where the customer is authorized to use the equipment of which he is put in possession, it cannot be said that such right is bereft of the element of control. We may clarify here that notwithstanding the above submission, it is the case of applicant that, it has neither possession nor control of any equipment of BTA. 12.6 The other case cited by the learned counsel for applicant to explain the meaning of expressions 'use' and 'right to use' is that of BSNL v. UOI (2006) 3 STT 245 (SC). Even that case turned on the interpretation of the words "transfer of right to use the goods" in the context of sales-tax Acts and the expanded definition of sale contained in clause (29A) of section 366 of the Constitution. The question arose whether a transaction of providing mobile phone service or telephone connection amounted to sale of goods in the special sense of transfer of right to use the goods. It was answered in the negative. The underlying basis of the decision is that there was no delivery of goods and the subscriber to a telephone service could not have intended to purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a verb has meaning to employ for any purpose, to employ for attainment of some purpose or end, to avail one's self, to convert to one's service or to put to one's use or benefit". (Esfeld Trucking Inc. v. Metropolitan Insurance Co.) 12.8 The word 'use' in relation to equipment occurring in clause (iva) is not to be understood in the broad sense of availing of the benefit of an equipment. The context and collocation of the two expressions 'use' and 'right to use' followed by the words "equipment" suggests that there must be some positive act of utilization, application or employment of equip-ment for the desired purpose. If an advantage is taken from sophisticated equipment installed and provided by another, it is difficult to say that the recipient/customer uses the equipment as such. The customer merely makes use of the facility, though he does not himself use the equipment. 13. It is the contention of the revenue that dedicated private circuits have been provided by BTA through its network for the use of the applicant. The utilization of bandwidth upto the requisite capacity is assured on account of this. The electronic circuits being '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to face with the equipment, operates it or controls its functioning in some manner, but, if it does nothing to or with the equipment (in this case, it is circuit, according to the revenue) and does not exercise any possessory rights in relation thereto, it only makes use of the facility created by the service provider who is the owner of entire network and related equipment. There is no scope to invoke clause (iva) in such a case because the element of service predominates. 13.2 Usage of equipment connotes that the grantee of right has possession and control over the equipment and the equipment is virtually at his disposal. But, there is nothing in any part of the agreement which could lead to a reasonable inference that the possession or control or both has been given to the applicant under the terms of the agreement in the course of offering the facility. The applicant is not concerned with the infrastructure or the access line installed by BTA or its agent or the components embedded in it. The operation, control and maintenance of the so-called equipment, solely rests with BTA or its agent being the domestic service provider. The applicant does not in any sense possess nor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 pertinent to them (letting) as it is in the case of absolute proprietary rights. As a rule, the 'right to use' already come into existence in these instance by authorized information(legitimate disclosure of secrets) . It may be restricted in the point of time in respect of the period following the expiry of the license. On the difference between a product with relatively simple technology, and a business secret. We note that, in case of DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc., reported in (2006) 9 SOT 100 , Hon'ble Delhi High Court distinguished the decision of Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CITT reported in (2003) 85 ITD 478 and held as under:- 19. The question that first comes up for consideration is whether section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, read with the Explanation 2 below thereto, is applicable. This also involves the subsidiary question whether the issue is covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocess" also. This naturally takes us to the question whether there is anything in article 12.3(a) of the DTAA between India and USA which militates against such a view. It must be remembered that India had no DTAA with Hongkong and hence the view taken by the Tribunal (supra) with regard to the clause (iii) of Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) would apply if we were to also interpret the same provision. But article 12.3(a) is worded as below : "The term 'royalties' as used in this article means : (a)payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on film, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, including gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use or disposition thereof; and" In Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) the Tribunal pointed out, while repel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of ejusdem generis or noscitur a socii. 20. That takes us to a consideration of the question whether the process carried on by the assessee is a secret process. On this question, we have weighed the elaborate arguments advanced by both the sides carefully and hold that so far as the transponder technology is concerned there appears to be no "secret technology", known only to a few. There is evidence adduced before us to show that the technology is even available in the form of published literature/book from which a person interested in it can obtain knowledge relating thereto. There is no evidence led from the side of the Department to show that the transponder technology is secret, known only to a few, and is either protected by law or is capable of being protected by law. This aspect of the matter was not required to be considered by the Tribunal in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (supra) because the view taken by the Tribunal was that there was no requirement in clause (iii) of Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) of the Act that the process involved, for which the payment is being made, should be a secret process. But in the view we have taken on the lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DTAA. We are therefore of the opinion that the receipt of IUC charges cannot be taxed as Royalty under Article 12 in India of India- Singapore DTAA. 9.2.18 The above observations are supported by the view expressed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra). Hon'ble High Court in the group of cases had considered following questions of law which are as under: "1. Whether the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in holding that the application of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) cannot be considered in proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and that it is not open to the payer to take benefit of the DTAA when he is making payment to a non- resident? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that amendment to provisions of royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) by inserting Explanation 5 and 6 under the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') will also result in amendment of the DTAAS? 3. Whether ITAT was correct in holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty in view of the incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting/terminating outside India. Assessee has entered into an agreement with NTOs for international carriage and connectivity services. According to the assessee, payment made to NTOs is towards interconnectivity charges. 14. Assessee has also entered into a CTA with a Belgium entity Belgacom. Belgacom had certain arrangement with the Omantel for utilisation of bandwidth. Omantel transferred certain portion of its capacity to Belgacom and Belgacom had in turn transferred a portion of its capacity to the assessee. 15. Admittedly the equipments and the submarine cables are situated overseas. To provide ILD calls, assessee had availed certain services from NTOs. It is also not in dispute that Belgacom, a Belgium entity with whom assessee has entered into an agreement does not have any 'permanent establishment' in India. 16. Shri. Pardiwala contended that the payments made by assessee cannot be treated as either Royalty or FTS34 or business profits as no part of the activity was carried out in India. Revenue's reply to his contention is that, the income belongs to the payee. If, in the opinion of assessee, tax was not deductible, he ought to have approached the AO for the nil dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty" inserted by explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years in question, at a time when such explanation was not actually and factually in the statute." "100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee 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.........." 21. The third question is, whether the payments made to NTOS for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty. It was argued by Shri. Pardiwala, that for subsequent years in assessee's own case, the ITAT has held that tax is not deductable when payment is made to non-resident telecom operator. This factual aspect is not refuted. Thus the Revenue has reviewed its earlier stand for the subsequent assessment years placing reliance on Viacom etc35, rendered by the ITAT. In that view of the matter this question also needs to be answered against the Revenue. 22. The fourth qu....