9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of section 35ABB of the IT Act, 1961 regarding interest payable on license fee; Distinction between royalty fee and license fee; Application of legal precedent on payment made to Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital.
Issue 1 - Interest on License Fee: The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 38,66,12,036 on account of interest payable on license fee was challenged. The High Court framed a question to determine whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting this addition u/s 35ABB of the IT Act, 1961. The Court analyzed the arguments and upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the distinction between royalty fee and license fee. It was clarified that the license fee is for acquiring the right to operate telecommunication services, while royalty fee is solely for the use of radio frequencies, not related to operating rights. Issue 2 - Distinction between Royalty Fee and License Fee: The Tribunal's decision regarding the distinction between royalty payable to the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination (WPC) and the license fee was examined. The Tribunal's interpretation of the license agreement's clause 19.4, stating that the annual license fee does not include royalty fee to the WPC Wing, was deemed appropriate. The Court affirmed that the license fee pertains to operating telecommunication services under section 35ABB, whereas royalty fee is specific to radio frequency usage, unrelated to operating rights. This distinction was crucial in determining the correctness of the Tribunal's decision. Issue 3 - Payment to Registrar of Companies: The question of deleting the addition of Rs. 7,96,300 made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment to the Registrar of Companies for share capital increase was addressed. Citing legal precedents, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The decision was based on a previous case involving Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., indicating that the question had already been settled in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was limited to the initial question framed regarding interest on license fee, with a directive for the appellant to file the necessary documents within three months as per rules.
|
