ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1559/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), which had allowed the appeal of United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (UHEPL), exempting them from deducting tax at source on payments made to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited for transponder services. The primary legal contention was whether these payments qualified as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and the corresponding DTAA with the UK. The Tribunal examined previous judgments and the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly focusing on the definition and scope of 'royalty' and 'process' as they pertain to the services provided by Intelsat.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397090 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Asia Satellite Telecommunications Limited, Wipro Limited, Panamsat, Intelsat Corporation of Delhi High Court, Taj TV Ltd, GE Technology Centre
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Retrospective amendment; Tax effect; TDS; Double taxation relief
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Room No. 634, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400051 PAN : AAACU6668D vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Building No. 14, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guruhargovindji Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 19-12-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act on payments made to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited for transponder charges on the ground that payment 2 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 did not constitute royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act or under the relevant DTAA?\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law as it was always meant and understood?\" 4. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term 'process' is not defined in the relevant DTAA and hence its meaning has to be derived from the domestic law of India?\" 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee, part of the Walt Disney group is an Indian company engaged in broadcasting business and owns and operates six television channels namely UTV Movies, Bindass Play, Disney Junior, The Disney Channel, Disney XD and Hungama TV. Other group entities of the assessee, engaged in the broadcasting business in India during the AY. 2016-17 were DBIPL and Genx Entertainment Limited ('Genx'), Genx and the assessee (i.e. UHEPL) are now merged into DBIPL. 3. It was further submitted that the assessee, along with its group entities, DBIPL and Genx had been provided with transponder services ('the Service') by Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited (Intelsat) through Intelsat Transponder Service Order and the Master Services Agreement (collectively the Transponder Agreement dated 01-07-2014) executed between the assessee, its group entities, DBIPL and Genx and 3 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 Intelsat for the rendering of transponder services to the assessee. No right, interest or lien upon the property or assets of Intelsat, including any satellite or related equipment, is granted by Intelsat to the assessee. Further, Intelsat is permitted to change the assessee's space segment allocation, move the Service to a different Intelsat satellite or alter the method by which Intelsat provides the Service, provided that substantially similar coverage and performance is provided. In consideration for the Service, the assessee would pay a service fee to Intelsat. 4. It was submitted that the assessee has filed an application u/s. 195(2) of the Act, requesting to issue an order for NIL withholding tax certificate for payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat during the financial year 1st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016, i.e. A.Y. 2016-17. In the said application, the assessee submitted that the payments made to Intelsat are not taxable in India for the following reasons: i. The payments to Intelsat are not taxable as royalty for the use of process under the Act since receipt of transponder services do not constitute the use of or the right to use any process [judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Limited [(ITA No 131 to 134 of 2003) and the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of M/s Wipro Limited (80 TTJ 191) relied upon]. ii. The payments to Intelsat are not taxable as royalty for the use of process even under the provisions of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('Treaty') since no secret process was used by Intelsat while providing the services to the assessee 4 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 [(judgment of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Panamsat (103 TTJ 861) relied upon). iii. The payment to Intelsat cannot be regarded as fees for technical services under the Act since the use of transponder services are only for the purpose of transmitting the satellite signals and the assessee is not interested in the technology used inside the transponder. iv. Further, the payments to Intelsat are not taxable as fees for included services under the provisions of the Treaty since no technical knowledge/experience, etc. was made available by Intelsat to the assessee while providing transponder services [(judgment of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Panamsat Supra) relied upon]. v. The payment to Intelsat cannot be regarded as payment for the use of equipment under the Act since the use of transponder Services do not constitute the use of equipment [(judgment of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. (85 ITD 478 relied upon). 5. It was submitted that the said application was disposed off and the ACIT(IT)-4(3)(1), Mumbai (AO) passed an order u/s. 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 04-08-2015 for the assessment year 2016-17 in respect of payments to be made to M/s. Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited, UK (Intelsat) for transponder services by holding that the transponder service charges paid/payable by the assessee during the F.Y. 2015-16 to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited, under the 5 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 transponder service agreement are in the nature of royalty under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK as well as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the assessee is required to withhold tax at the rate of 10.51% (inclusive of surcharge and cess) on service fee payable to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited. It was held by the AO that the Finance Act, 2012 had inserted a new explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act which defines the term 'royalty'. As per the new Explanation 6, the term 'process', as referred to the definition of 'royalty' under the Act, includes transmission by satellite (including up-linking, amplification, conversion for down-linking of any signal). The new explanation also states that 'process' which includes transmission by satellite) shall be 'royalty' under the Act whether or not such process is secret. In light of the said explanation, it was held that payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat by assessee is a 'process' and thus it is in the nature of royalty income taxable in India in terms of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as treaty. It was further held by the AO that the definition of Royalties as per Article 13 of the India-UK Tax Treaty includes the payment made for use of any 'process'. The term 'process' is not defined in the India-UK Tax Treaty. Therefore the definition of the term process has to be imported from the Act. Thus, the payment made for transmission by satellite was held as royalty even under the tax treaty. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal u/s 248 before the Ld.CIT(A) and vide order dated 19-12-2024, the CIT(A) held that in case of assessee itself in ITA No. 2841 to 2856/Mum/2012 dated 25-10-2016 (AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 and ITA No. 5171 to 5181/Mum/2013 dated 28-11-2016 (AY 2012-13 to 2013-14), the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Following the same, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 6 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 of the Act. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. 7. It was further submitted that even though the tax effect involved in the present appeal amounts to Rs. 59,693/-, which is below the prescribed threshold for filing the appeal, at the same time, the matter falls under one of the exceptions 3.1(l) of CBDT Circular dated 15-03-2024 which has been carved out by the CBDT as the dispute relates to determination of nature of transaction and the liability to deduct TDS u/s 195 read with section 9(1)(vi) and Article 13 of India –UK DTAA is under question. It was submitted that since the Revenue has not accepted the order so passed by the Tribunal for the earlier years, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. 9. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which are under challenge before us read as under: “The issue is deductibility of tax at source under Section 195(2) on payment made by appellant to M/s Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Ltd. (UK). Before me detailed submission was made. There is Judicial precedent in case of appellant itself: A: (ITA No. 2841 to 2856/Mum/2012) dated 25.10.2016 (AY 10-11 to 12-13) B: (ITA Nos. 5171 to 5181/Mum/2013) dated 28.11.2016 (AY 12-13 to 13-14) C (52 CCH 98) dated 09.02.2018 (AY 13-14 to 16-17) The above has genesis in decision in case of Intelsat Corporation of Delhi High Court vide order in ITA 977/2011 and ITA 530 and 545/2012. The decisions at Sr.Nos, A, B, C above are that with regards to payment to 7 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 Intelsat Corporation and Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited (U.K.) not being royalty, there is no need to deduct tax at source. Facts and circumstances are identical, as decided by Hon. ITAT in case of appellant itself. Following the same, I hold that the appellant is not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195. Therefore, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 10. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and perusing the material available on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Intelsat Corporation and the decision of the Coordinate Benches in assessee‟s own case and held that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act on the transponder service charges payable to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Ltd., U.K under the Transponder Service Agreement dated 01-07-2014. We refer to the latest order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee‟s own case dated 28-11-2016 wherein it has been held as under: “9. Now we shall take up the issues on merits. The main issue involved in this appeal is that amount paid to M/s Intelsat Inter Corporation, USA under the transponder service agreement for the transponder service charges paid by the assessee to Intelsat under the said agreement has 9 I.T.A. Nos.5171 to 5181/Mum/2013 been treated as „royalty‟ under the provisions of the Act. According to the assessee, it was neither „royalty‟ nor Fee for Technical Services (FTS). It is noted by us that this issue has been dealt in extenso by the Tribunal in its order dated 25-10-2016. Relevant part of the same is reproduced hereunder:- “7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as various decisions as relied upon by the parties before us. At the threshold it is noticed that, in the case of the payee, i.e., Intelsat Corporation US, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 19.08.2011 and then again reaffirmed vide order dated 28.09.2012 in ITA No. 530 & 545/2012, following the order of its own court in Asia Satellite Communications Ltd (ITA 131/2003 decided on 31.01.2011),have categorically held that payment received by Intelsat is not taxable in India under the provisions of Indo-US-DTAA. Once in the case of the payee it has been categorically held that the said amount is not taxable, then assessee is not obliged to deduct TDS and, therefore, the impugned proceedings under section 195 deserves to be quashed. Otherwise also, this issue of payment of transponder charges made to 8 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 Panamsat (later on name was changed to Intelsat Corporation) has been subject matter of issue before various Courts including that of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case Taj TV Ltd. In the said case, the Tribunal has observed and held as under:- 18. Now, coming to the issue of disallowance of various expenses under section 40(a)(i) like,'transponder charges\" and 'up linking charges' as raised in ground No.2(i) and 2 (ii), it is seen that these, payments has been paid to PanAmSat International Systems Inc. USA for providing facility of transponder for telecasting 'Ten Sports' channel in various countries including India. The assessee entered into an agreement with PanAmSat to utilize the transponder facility providing by the said US based company for telecasting its sports channel which are on the footprint of transponder of PanAmSat. The Revenue's case beforeus is that, firstly, it is taxable under section 9(1)(vi) as 'royalty]' and also under Article 12(3){b) of Indo US-DTAA. Similarly, the up linking charges paid for up linking the channels to PanAmSat Satellite for delay intransmission and for up linking signals for live events from the venue of the events to the satellite have been treated to be 'royalty'. Since, the assessee had not deducted 'FDS under section 195, disallowance under section 40(a){i) has been made. The assessee's case before us is that, firstly, PanAmSat is a USA based company, therefore, Indo-U'S DTAA is applicable and since it does not have any PE or business connection inIndia, therefore, the payment made to a non-residentoutside India for auailinq service of equipment placed outside India cannot be taxed in India. In support of such a contention decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Set Satellite (supra) has been relied upon. In any case, it has been submitted that, even otherwise also the definition of \"royalty\" under Article 12(3) of Indo-US-DTAA is also not applicable, because transponder charges is only use of facility and it is not an equipment and does not amount to use of any copyright effecting work, secret formula, process etc or any other term described in para 3 of Article 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not a 'royalty' and secondly, even otherwise also by virtue of Article' 12(7) such a royalty cannot be taxed 'in India, because it is not borne by PE or fixed place of the US company in India. The Ld. DR has strongly relied upon amended definition of the 'royalty' under the Act, wherein the scope and definition of 'royalty' has been enlarged by the newly inserted Explanation (v) and (vi)by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from01-06-19761 and has contended that the said definition into DTAA also, that is, the definition of royalty has to be taken from the Domestic Law. In support, the Ld.DR has strongly relied upon the decision of _ High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. (supra) and the ITAT decision in the case of Viacom.18 Media Pvt Ltd. 19. First of all, let us examine the definition of \"royalty\" as been defined under Article 12 of the lndo- US-DTAA, which has been defined in the following manner: 9 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 \"3. The term \"royalties\" as used in this Article means: a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on film, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, includinq gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof; and b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping and Air Transport)from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8\". The article gives exhaustive definition of the term „royalty' and therefore, the definition and scope of 'royalty' is to be seen from the Article alone and no definition under the domestic Act or law is required to be considered or seen or any amendment made in such definition whether retrospective or prospective which can be read in a manner so as to extend any operation to the terms as defined or understood in the Treaty. The Legislature or Parliament while carrying out amendment to interpret or define a given provision under the domestic Law of the country cannot supersede or control the meaning of the word which has been expressly defined in a Treaty negotiated between executives of two foreign nations. The payment of transponder charges to PanAmSat and up linking cannot be treated as a consideration for 'use' or right to use' any copyright of various terms used in para 3(a) like copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on film, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting or in any manner relates to any patent or trademark, design, secret formula or process, It is also not use or right to use any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment. There is no such kind of right to use which is given by Pan Am Sat to assessee. Thus, the said payment does not fall within the ambit of the terms used in para 3 of Article 12. So far as the reading of amended definition of „royalty‟ as given in section 9(1)(vi) into treaty, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in its latest judgment in the case of DIT vs New Skies Satellite (supra), wherein it has considered Hon‟ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd (supra) also, have discussed the issue threadbare and came to the conclusion in the following manner:- \"60. Consequently, since we have held that the Finance Act, 2012 will not affect Article 12 of the DTAAs, it would follow that the first determinative interpretation given to the word \"royalty\" in Asia Satellite, supra note 1, when the definitions were in fact pari material (in the absence of any contouring explanations), will continue to hold the filed for the purpose of 10 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 assessment years preceding (ne-Finance Act, 2012 and in all cases which involve a, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, unless the said DTAAs are amended jointly by both partners to incorporate income from data transmission services as partaking of the nature Of royalty, or amend the definition in a manner so that such income , automatically becomes royalty. It is reiterated that the Court has not returned a finding on whether the amendment is in fact retrospective and applicable to cases preceding the Finance Act of 20 12 where there exists no Double Tax Avoidance Agreement\". The aforesaid decision takes care of all the arguments relied upon by the Ld. DR including that of the Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd's. The Hon'ble High Court specifically clarified as to why the said decision Madras High Court cannot be applied in such case after observing as under.- 31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. V.The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 1,[2014j 361 ITR 575 (Mad), the Court held the Explanations to be applicable to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases.the clarificatory nature of the amendment ioo s not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment years predating the amendment. The crucial difference between the judgments however lies in the application of the amendments to the DTAA. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, we hold that, the definition of royalty as enlarged by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect will not have any affect in Article 12 of DTAA”. In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has taken note of the ratio and law upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of New Skies Satellite (supra) and Asia Satellite Telecommunications and has held that the payment made for transponder charges will not fall in the nature of 'royalty' and also the scope of enlarged definition of 'royalty' given in section 9(l)(vi) will not apply in DTAA. 8. Before us Ld DR has heavily relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the Siemens AG to contend that nowhere the Court has laid down that amendment in the Domestic Law cannot be read into Treaty rather it is otherwise. We find that in the latest decision the Hon'bIe Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. News Sky Satellite BV (supra) have explained the ratio and principle of Hon'ble Bombay High Court i n the case of Siemens Aktiongesellschaft(supra). The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case reads as under:- 11 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 48. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seimens AktiongessellschaJt, [2009J 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R v. Melford Developments Inc. held that \"The ratio of the judgment, in our opinion, would mean that by a unilateral amendment it is not possible for one nation which is party to an agreement to tax income which otherwise was not subject to tax. Such income would not be subject to tax under the expression \"laws in force\". ******** ********* ******** While considering the Double Tax A voidance Agreement the expression \"laws in force” would not only include a tax already covered by the treaty but would also include any other tax as taxes of a substantially similar character subsequent to the date of the agreement as set out in article 1(2). Considering the express language of article 1(2) it is not possible to accept the broad proposition urged on behalf of the assessee that the law would be the law as applicable or as define when the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement was entered into\". 49. It is essential to note the context in which this judgment was delivered. There, the Court was confronted with a situation where the word royally was not defined in the German DTAA. Following from our previous discussion on the bifurcation of terms within the treaty, in situations where words remain undefined, assistance is to be drawn from the definition and import of the words as they exist in the domestic \"laws in force\". It was in this. context that the Bombay High Court held that they were unable to accept the assessee's contention that the law applicable would be the law as it existed at the time the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement was entered into. This is the context in which the ambulatory approach to tax treaty interpretation was not rejected. The situation before this Court however is materially different as there is in fact a 'definition of the word royalty under Article 12 of both DTAA, thus dispensing with the need for recourse to Article 3. 50. There are therefore two sets of circumstances. First, where there exists no definition of a word in issue within the DTAA itself, regard is to be had to the laws in force in the jurisdiction of the State called upon to interpret the word. The Bombay High Court seems to accept the ambulatory approach in such a situation, thus allowing for successive amendments into the realm of laws in force”. We express no opinion in this regard since it is not in issue before this Court. This Court‟s finding is in the context of the second situation, where there does exist a definition of a term within the DTAA. When that is the case, there is no need to refer to the laws in force in the Contracting States, especially to deduce the meaning of the definition under the DTAA and the ultimate taxability of the income under the agreement. That is not to say that the Court may be inconsistent in its interpretation of 12 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 similar definitions. What that does imply however, .is that just because there is a domestic definition similar to the one under the DTAA, amendments to the domestic law, in an attempt to contour, restrict or expand the definition under its statute, cannot extend to the definition under the DTAA. In other words, the domestic law remains static for the purposes of the DT AA.” Thus the contention of the Ld. DR cannot be accepted in view of clarification given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that where the definition has been given in the Treaty then there is no requirement to look into domestic law or any amendment made therein. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the payment made by the assessee to Intelsat is not taxable as royalty in India and, therefore, assessee was not required to deduct TDS or withhold any tax on such payments. This proposition has been upheld by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre, 327 ITR 456. 7. So far as the issue relating to FTS is concerned, we find that, this Tribunal in B4u International Holdings (supra) on similar payment made to Panamsat, it was held that they do not satisfy the test of “make available” as enshrined in Article 12(3) in Indo-US-DTAA and thus, the said payment cannot be held to be taxable as being for technical services and secondly, on this ground also, the provision of TDS is' not attracted. In any case Ld. CIT '(A) cannot hold that same payment would fall in the nature of 'royalty' and at same time would be reckoned as 'FTS' also. Lastly, as regards the issue of business communication in India, as pointed by the Ld Counsel, Shri Madhur Agarwal that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Intelsat has taken note of this fact while deciding the issue of taxability of receipts in favour of Intelsat that, it has leased its transponder capacity and bandwidth to the various customers in India and outside India who have used the transponder for business in India. Thus, in the light of this observation and fact noted by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of the payee and otherwise also we do not find any merits that, simply because the transponders have been used in for business in India will tantamount to business connection of Intelsat in India and, accordingly, such an observation and finding of the CIT(A) is hereby rejected by us. Thus, the issues raised by the assessee in grounds No.1 to 7 are squarely covered by various decisions as discussed above and respectfully following the same we hold that assessee is not liable to deduct TDS.” “10. It is noted from the above that the bench relied upon various judgments including the judgment of Taj TV Ltd wherein decision relied upon by the Ld. DR in the case of Viacom.18 has been considered in detail. Apart from that the main point to be noted here is that the bench took note of a vital fact that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of payee, viz. M/s Intelsat Corporation, USA has categorically held that payment received by Intelsat Corporation is not taxable in India under the provisions of Indo US DTAA. Thus, in the case of payee, it has been categorically held that said payment is not taxable, then the assessee is not obliged to deduct TDS, 13 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 therefore, the impugned proceedings u/s 195 deserves to be quashed. Thus, after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case and, therefore, the issue raised in the appeal before us stands allowed in terms of earlier order of the Tribunal which shall apply mutatis mutandis on the issue raised in this appeal before us. Accordingly we hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.” 11. We therefore find that it has been consistently held by the Co-ordinate Benches that the subject payments are not liable for TDS u/s 195 of the Act. Nothing has been brought on record in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court wherein the orders so passed by the Co-ordinate Benches have either been stayed or set aside nor any contrary decision/authority has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing. 12. Admittedly, there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view thereof, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Benches, we see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [RAHUL CHAUDHARY] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 27-05-2025 TNMM 14 ITA No. 1559/Mum/2025 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai "