9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the AY ) 2016-17 2017-18 filed by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 26.03.2024 passed under section 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax -2(2)(1), New Delhi (hereinafter, the AO ). Since the facts of these appeals and issues involves are similar; therefore, we heard these appeals together and the same are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The case of AY 2016-17; ITA No. 2617/Del/2024, is taken as a lead case. Following grounds have been taken in AY 2016-17: Ground No. 1:That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO'), pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble Panel') is based upon conjectures, surmises, preconceived notions, and incorrect application of law, is devoid of any merits and is hence, bad in law and void ab initio. Ground No.2: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction and thereby passing an assessment under Section 144 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds are independent of and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing. 2.1 In nut shell, the appellant/assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act, treating of subscription fees as Fees for Technical Services (hereinafter, the FTS ) and or royalty under the Act as well as under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA, chargeability of tax @ 40% and initiation of penalty proceedings under the Act. Grounds numbered 1 and 3, being general in nature, do not require specific adjudication. Ground No. 7 and 8 being consequential also stand dismissed. Ground No. 9 is in respect of initiation of penalty proceedings, which is premature; hence, it is dismissed. Ground No. 4 to 6 are being adjudicated here as these involve the core issue that whether subscription fees received by appellant for publishing books, journals, articles in relation to various aspects such as legal, banking, risk management etc. and providing on line analytical tools to access the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e receipts fall in the purview of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also under the Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. Alternatively, the AO has also held that the said receipts are in the nature of royalty and thus, the same is taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and also under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. Similar facts and issues are involved in AY 2017-18 also. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the AR ) contended that the receipts of INR 248,077,042 in absence of any PE in India were not taxable in India under Article 5 read with article 7 of India-UK DTAA. Further, he contended that such receipts would not qualify as a FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as these were not in the nature of fee for technical services. In support of the said argument, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of RELX INC, ITA No. 630/2023 order dated 07.02.2024. It was categorically submitted that the RELX INC, a group entity of the appellant/assessee and was also engaged in the similar business and therefore, the appellant/assessee s case got squarely covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of RELX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copyright. In fact, it was the categorical assertion of the assessee that the copyright remains with it at all times. 12. This issue in any case no longer appears to be res integra in light of the judgment of this Court in Director of Income Tax Vs. Infrasoft 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4694 . We deem it apposite to extract the following passages from that decision:- .. 13. The distinction between the transfer of a copyright as distinct from a mere right to use copyrighted material was again highlighted by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Vs. CIT (2022) 3 SCC 321 when it observed- 14. The distinction between the right of access to copyrighted content as opposed to parting with the copyright itself was again explained by our Court in CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation10 where the following pertinent observations were made:- . 15. Similarly, in order for that income to fall within the ambit of fees for included services', it was imperative for the Department to establish that the assessee was rendering technical or consultancy services and which included making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. As has been found by the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
