Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The DRP, after evaluating the draft assessment order and the decisions relied upon therein passed the following order:

" 3.2 We have considered the factual and legal arguments of the assessee. On perusal of the draft assessment order, it is gathered that the AO has primarily relied upon the order of the Ld. ITAT, Delhi in the case of GoDaddy.com LLC (ITA No.No.1878/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) and ITA. No. 7123/ DELI 2017 (A. Y 2014-15). On perusal of these orders dated 03.04.2018 and 24.07.2018 respectively, Panel is of the view that the facts of the present case is squarely covered with the facts of the case of GoDaddy.com LLC (supra). It would be appropriate to quote the relevant part of the order of the Ld. ITAT covering the issue of 'Domain Name Registration Services being treated as royalty' as under:
... (Excerpts from Godaddy.com decision reproduced) 3.3 Respectfully relying upon the decision of the Ld ITAT in the case of GoDaddy.com LLC (supra), Panel upholds the action of the AO to treat the receipts on account of 'Domain Name Registration Charges' as 'Royalty' u/ s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Ground of objection is therefore, dismissed.

...

4.5 In view of the above discussion, Panel holds that the webhosting services are interlinked with the 'Domain Registration' and are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right for which a payment is received as Royalty. Since the payment received for registration of Domain Name is considered as 'Royalty', the payments received for 'Web Hosting Services' are also considered as 'Royalty· u/ s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Ground of objection is, therefore, dismissed."

(emphasis supplied)

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that despite noting the objection of the Petitioner that AO has erred in proposing the income from domain name registration services to be treated as Royalty, under the India- UAE DTAA, DRP has not adjudicated upon the same. The DRP, without any application of mind, followed the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „ITAT‟), Delhi in GoDaddy.com LLC (ITA No.No.1878/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) and I.T.A No. 7123/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2014-15), not appreciating that the taxability in GoDaddy.com (supra) was decided under the provisions of the Act and not under any DTAA. The DRP did not adjudicate Petitioner‟s categorical objections on the taxability under the India-UAE DTAA, which violates the principles of natural justice. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue, at the outset raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition. He argues that since there is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner under Section 253(1)(d) of the Act, whereby the assessment order passed by AO in pursuance of the DRP directions can be challenged in appeal before the ITAT, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to file the present petition. He also contends that no assessee can be aggrieved merely by the directions of the DRP, since it does not culminate into an order until the AO incorporates it and passes an assessment order. He further contends that the assessee had the option to either approach the DRP against the draft assessment order, or file an appeal before the CIT(A). The Petitioner having elected to subject himself to jurisdiction of the DRP under Section 144C(5) of the Act, against which no right of appeal has been provided under the Act, it cannot prefer a writ petition to assail the said order. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Ltd. v. Golden Chariot Airport, (2010) 10 SCALE 69.

18. The case of the Petitioner is essentially that the definition of Royalty under the Act is wider than that provided in the Treaty. Petitioner‟s contention is that under the Act "transfer of rights in property similar to trademark" is also covered, whereas under the Treaty, only the "transfer of right to use trademark" is covered and not "similar rights or rights in property similar to trademark". This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the aforesaid objection as it is for Respondent No. 1 to consider, evaluate and analyse the same, while exercising the power under Section 144C of the Act. However, we cannot gloss over the fact that this elementary argument of the Petitioner has not been dealt with at all in the impugned directions. Further, it also cannot escape our attention that the decision of ITAT Delhi in GoDaddy.com LLC (supra) - which forms the basis of the impugned directions, has a distinguishing feature, which is also noted in the impugned directions in para 3.2. In the case of GoDaddy.com LLC (supra), the assessee took a stand that it is not a tax resident of USA, and therefore, it was not claiming any benefit under the provisions of India-