9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1174 - HC - Income TaxIncome accrued in India - Characterization of income - consideration paid by assessee to the non resident company for acquiring right to distribute TV channels - Royalty OR business income - income subject to withholding tax - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case when the payment received by the recipient Company is not royalty, the same would also not be royalty in the hands of payee. Thus, no substantial questions of law arises for our consideration. See SET SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND ANOTHER 2008 (8) TMI 96 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Issues:
- Interpretation of whether consideration paid by assessee to non-resident company for acquiring the right to distribute TV channels is in the nature of Royalty or business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The High Court of Bombay was presented with an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The main question of law before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the consideration paid by the assessee to the non-resident company for acquiring the right to distribute TV channels is not in the nature of Royalty but is considered as business income, hence not subjected to withholding tax. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal by deciding that the amount received by the non-resident company was not in the nature of royalty, leading to no withholding tax liability. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, had appealed to the High Court. However, the High Court noted that a previous decision by the Court had already concluded the matter in favor of the non-resident company, Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., by determining that the payment received was not royalty. Consequently, as the payment was not considered royalty in the hands of the recipient company, it would also not be treated as royalty in the hands of the payee. The Court, therefore, found no substantial question of law to consider and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs being issued.
|
