Delhi High Court - Orders
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... vs Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd on 8 February, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 335/2022
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Manoj Sabharwal, Mr Nakul
Sehgal and Mr Abhishek Anand, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 08.02.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties for some time.
2. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, has brought to our notice that the following questions of law have been proposed in the appeal:
"2.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT has erred in holding that the receipts from Indian customers for services provided outside Indian Territory in connection with use or right to use of process or equipment by the assessee company cannot be taxed as royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Singapore?
2.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. IT AT has erred in interpreting the meaning of Royalty under Article 12 of the India Singapore DTAA without considering Article 3(2) of the said DTAA when the word 'process' is not defined in the said DTAA? 2.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT has erred in not adopting the meaning of royalty as per Explanation 2 and Explanation 6 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act in view of the Article 3(2) of the India Singapore DTAA?
ITA 335/2022 page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:14.02.2023 11:38:54 2.4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. IT
AT has erred in holding that provision of DT AA being beneficial to the Assessee is to be followed as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act even though there is no difference in scope of taxation of Royalty as per DT AA and that in Income Tax Act in view of the Article 12 read with Article 3(2) of the India Singapore DTAA and section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
3. Although, we thought that the appellant/revenue is also wanting to press the point that the Tribunal had not examined the provisions of Article 3(2) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Explanation 2 and 6, appended to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"], Mr Bhatia says that the appellant/revenue restricts the question of law proposed to the one set out in paragraph 2.1 of the appeal. 3.1 Mr Bhatia's statement is taken on record.
4. Accordingly, only the first question set out above is admitted for consideration in the instant appeal.
5. List the matter on 21.02.2023, at 03:00 P.M.
6. Learned counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least two days before the next date of hearing.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
FEBRUARY 8, 2023/aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 335/2022 page 2 of 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
JAIN
Signing Date:14.02.2023
11:38:54