9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] and Emirates Telecommunications group company, etc.[ 2024 (9) TMI 1678 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that Interconnect charges are not royalty. In case of assessee, on identical facts and circumstances, Coordinate Benches have also held so. Therefore respectfully following all those decisions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in holding that interconnect charges cannot be taxed as royalty. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice President And Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Dhiraj, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is filed by the DCIT(IT), Circle 2(2), Bengaluru [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was justified as it had not filed the return of income offering the payments made by it to M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. which was held to be taxable in India, by the AO? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A)-12 was right in holding that the process royalty is not applicable without as much as considering the agreements between the assessee and payees, opinion of experts in the field of telecommunication and provisions governing royalty in the act and DTAA? 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a non-resident telecom operator based in Austria, who has received a payment of Rs.208,42,638 from an Indian entity Vodafone South Ltd. As per proceedings u/s. 201 in the case of payee, it was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, wherein the issue was decided against the revenue. The revenue also challenged it before the Hon ble Supreme Court and SLP was dismissed. The ld. CIT(A) held that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the issue whether interconnect charges should be treated as royalty or not has reached finality, as Supreme Court has held that such charges are not royalty. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. 6. The ld. AO, aggrieved with the same, has raised several grounds of apepal. The ld. DR reiterated the findings of the ld. AO and ld. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that identical issue arose in assessee s own case for AY 2009-10, 2011-12 2012-13 wherein the coordinate Bench has passed an order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
