Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Intelsat Corporation on 21 September, 2022
$~43 & 44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 346/2022
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL
TAXATION)-2
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate for
Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
INTELSAT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.S.Tomar with Mr.Vishal Kalra,
Advocates.
+ ITA 347/2022
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL
TAXATION)-2
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate for
Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
INTELSAT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.S.Tomar with Mr.Vishal Kalra,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 21st September, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ITA Nos.346-347/2022 Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:22.09.2022
18:44:56
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present income tax appeals have been filed challenging the order
dated 13th December, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
('ITAT') in ITA No. 4946/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and
the order dated 11th October, 2021 in ITA No. 3199/Del./2018 for the
Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred in
holding that the amount received by the Intelsat Corporation, USA for lease
of transponder facility are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vi) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Article 12(3) of the DTAA
between India and USA as royalty. She states that the ITAT has erred in
not appreciating that amount received by Intelsat Corporation, USA
represented income by the way of royalty as defined in Explanation 2 read
with Explanation 5.6 to Section 9(l)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3)
of the India-USA DTAA. She further states that the ITAT has erred in not
appreciating that the transmission of signals/data through satellite
transponder would fall within the meaning of word process, as appearing in
Clauses (i), (ii) & (ii) of explanation 2 of Section 9(l)(vi) and Article 12(3)
of the DTAA between India and USA.
3. Admittedly, the questions of law urged in the present appeal are
covered by the decision of this Court in assessee's own case in ITA
900/2019 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein this Court
dismissed an appeal of the Revenue on similar grounds relying on the
decisions in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT
(2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del) and Director of International Taxation Vs. New
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:22.09.2022
18:44:56
Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 Del.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not
accepted the aforesaid decisions and has preferred SLPs against the same.
5. Though the appeals in the aforementioned cases are pending
adjudication, yet there is no stay of the said judgments till date.
6. Consequently, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court
in Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala And Another, (2000) 6
SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India
Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the
issues raised in the present appeals are covered by the judgment passed by
the learned predecessor Division Bench.
7. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in
the present appeals and the same are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2022
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:22.09.2022
18:44:56
