9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vities carried out through its alleged permanent establishment in India - There is no economic link between the payments assuming that they are in the nature of royalties made out of India cannot be termed as perverse - the Revenue stand cannot be upheld - There has been no general rule laid down nor can the Tribunal's order be seen as having any impact or repercussion on cases pending before the authorities or before the Tribunal - none of the apprehensions of Mr.Tejveer Singh can enable the court to entertain the appeal – no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2014 - S.C.DHARMADHIKARI G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh i/b Mr.Sure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the payment to one Global Cricket Corporation Private Limited for acquisition of telecast rights are in the nature of royalty covered by explanation 2 under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the further question that assuming it is in the nature of a royalty, yet the Article 12(7) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agrement would denote that the payment is not chargeable to tax in India. Mr.Singh submits that these are two substantial questions of law and which directly emerge from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. We are unable to agree. The concurrent finding and on fact, is that the assessee is a Singapore based company engaged in the business of acquiring rights in television progra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Then, the Revenue stand cannot be upheld. Even with regard to the alleged permanent establishment of the assessee in India, the Tribunal's finding of fact is that the economic link is entirely with the assessee's head office in Singapore. The payment to GCC cannot be said to have been incurred in connection with the appellant's permanent establishment in India. Such a finding of fact and which is re-affirmed in paragraph no.20 cannot raise any substantial question of law. The finding of fact is that the payer is not a resident of India. Secondly, the liability to pay royalty has not been incurred in connection with and is not borne by the permanent establishment of the payer in India. The absence of economic link is thus the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
