TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Tax) 2(3)(1), Mumbai ('the Learned AO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel (the DRP') erred in holding the sum of INR 7,64.42,430 as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (the DTAA') entered into between India and UK. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in alleging that Dow Jones Consulting India Private Limited (DJCIPL) could constitute an Agency PE of the Appellant. 3. On the facts and in the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention of the assessee is that the transaction between assessee and DJCIPL is on principal to principal basis at an arm's length. The assessee further claimed that since, it does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, its income is not taxable in India under India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring Nil income. The assessee claimed refund of the tax deducted at source (Rs. 78,38,420/-) on the payments made by DJCIPL and KPMG. The AO in draft assessment order held that the payment made by DJCIPL, KPMG, IQVIA Limited and Deloitte to the assessee are in nature of 'royalty' therefore liable to be taxed in India. Aggrieved by the draft assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decision on which the ld. AR has placed reliance in support of his submissions. Insofar as assessee's nature of activity in the preceding assessment years and the assessment year under appeal is concerned, it is undisputed that there has been no change. Both the sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in the impugned assessment year and in the preceding assessment years are same. 7. We find that in AY 2015-16 addition was made in the hands of assessee treating the payment received from DJCIPL as royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act and further holding DJCIPL as Agency PE of the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench after considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle/information with advanced search capabilities and then subscriber of Factiva product gets access to the database, business puts a query in the search box, various news articles and other information in relation to search term, as actual public appears on the screen. 20. Even otherwise this issue is covered in favour of the assessee in its group company case M/s. Dow Jones and Company India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). So the question framed is answered in the negative and as such the payment received by the assessee is not a 'royalty' under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. So we hereby set aside the addition made by the AO under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3) of India-UK DTAA and as such ordered to be deleted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... acceptable, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee has granted rights for distribution of its product in the specified territory only to the Distributor. All the rights, titles and interest in the products are vested with the assessee company and not parted with. The assessee has insulated the Distributor from the loss with dynamic pricing structure of cost plus mark up of 5%. The Distributor i.e. M/s. Dow Jones Consulting India Private Limited is wholly owned indirect subsidiary of the assessee company. Considering these facts of the case, it is evident that the Distributor is falls within the concept of agency PE and therefore it is incorrect to say that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in ....