TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel- 2, Mumbai (DRP) vide order u/s 144C(5) dated 26.12.2025. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "Reopening of the assessment 1. erred in reopening the assessment in the absence of escapement of income, Assessment order is barred by limitation 2. erred in passing the final assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) for the impugned Assessment Year 2019-20, on 21 January 2026, beyond the time limit as specified u/s. 153 of the Act which expired on 31 March 2025, Taxability of Telecommunication services 3. erred in holding that the receipts towards telecommunication services are in the nature of Royalty/F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,56,857/- towards royalty/FTS being remittance from Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. The assessee filed objection against the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP-2). The DRP-2, in its order u/s 144C(5) dated 26.12.2025, issued directions wherein the adverse finding of AO was accepted and objection of the assessee was rejected. Subsequently, the AO passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 21.01.2026 by making addition of Rs. 10,29,56,857/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, both the parties fairly admitted that similar issues as those involved in the present appeal have been consistently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns relied upon by the Ld. AR. As stated earlier, both parties agreed that the issues involved in this appeal are recurring in nature and were decided by the Tribunal in different assessment years. For ready reference, the relevant part of the order in ITA No.2866/Mum/2022 dated 26.04.2023 is reproduced below: "19. We have heard both the parties. It is noted that, the assessee company had entered into a Bandwidth Services Agreement dated 01.09.2017 with M/s. RJIUK which is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. The said payee is a tax resident of the United Kingdom as is evident from the Tax Residency Certificate. M/s. RJIUK is engaged in business activities relating to International Telecommunication and it provides services....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention of the Revenue to that extent is held to be devoid of any merit and is thus rejected. 20. Thus, the Ld. AR had rightly relied on the findings given by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19 in ITA. Nos.6331 to 6334/Mum/2018 dated 05.11.2019. In the decided case, this Tribunal followed their earlier order in assessee's own case for AY 2016-17 reported in 108 taxmann.com 325, wherein it was held that the fees paid for bandwidth services did not constitute 'royalty' as defined in India-Singapore tax treaty (identical to India-UK DTAA). The relevant findings are noted to be as under: ....... 21. It is noted that this Tribunal had also dealt with the applicability of definition of 'royalty' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that, there was no obligation for assessee to deduct tax at source while making payment to M/s RJIUK for Bandwidth Services, in the facts and circumstances discussed (supra). 24. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed." 5.1 Further, in case of Reliance Jio Infocomm USA Inc. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2991/Mum/2023 dated 17.04.2026, the Tribunal after extracting observation of the Tribunal in ITA No.6331 to 6334/Mum/2018 (supra), decided the issue as follows: "6.5. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relying on the orders passed by the authorities below vehemently argued the observations as recorded by the Ld.AO/DRP in their orders. Nothing was bro....