9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NEW SKIES SATELLITE BV, SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD. [ 2016 (2) TMI 415 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the explanations added below section 9(1) of the Act were not merely clarificatory in nature. Respectfully agreeing with the said decisions of the Delhi High Court, this question is not considered. Addition u/s 40A(2) - amount receivable considering the expost facto agreement between the assessee and the Nimbus - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the assessee and Nimbus are persons referred to in clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 40A. However, in order to invoke subsection (2) of Section 40A, the Assessing Officer has to come to the conclusion that such expenditure incurred by the assessee being a payment to a person referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition towards Satellite Space Fees/transponder charges relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication 238 CTR (Del) 233, without considering the amendment in section 9(1)(vi) w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 [by Finance Act, 2012], wherein the intent of legislature in respect of 'royalty' has been clarified thereby deeming the said charges to be 'royalty' in nature? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,44,17,143/after considering the expost facto agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t held that the payments were not in the nature of royalty charges. The Court made a distinction between transfer of rights in respect of property and transfer of rights in the property. 4. Later on similar issue once again came before Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Income tax Vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114. The Court followed the earlier decision in case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication (supra) and dismissed the revenue s Appeal. It was held that the explanations added below section 9(1) of the Act were not merely clarificatory in nature. Respectfully agreeing with the said decisions of the Delhi High Court, this question is not considered. 5. Question (b) arises in follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the CIT (Appeals) and rejected the ground making following observations; 20. We noticed that the AO has not doubted the existence of mutual understanding between the assessee and BCCB which gave the assessee the right to telecast live matches. AO has not doubted the existence of agreement between the assessee and BCCB for live telecast of matches during the year 2006 to 2009. The AO has not made any addition for nondirection of TDS under section 40(a) of the Act, but, held that the expenses in question are not allowable because the same have been made in the absence of any expressed agreement between the parties. In our considered view, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
