Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
\n\u201cI\u201d Bench, Mumbai
\nBefore Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
\nand Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member
\nITA No.936\/Mum\/2017
\n(Assessment Year: 2016-17)
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income
\nTax (IT)-4(1)(1),
\nRoom No.- 1712,
\nAir India Building,
\nNariman Point,
\nMumbai \u2013 400021
\nVs.
\nM\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.,
\n9th Floor, Maker Chambers IV,
\n222 Nariman Point,
\nMumbai \u2013 400 021
\nPAN \u2013 AABCI6363G
\n(Appellant) (Respondent)
\nAppellant by: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
\nRespondent by: Shri Sunil Moti Lala &
\nShri Bhavya Sundesha, A.Rs
\nDate of Hearing: 14.03.2019
\nDate of Pronouncement: 10.05.2019
\nO R D E R
\nPER RAVISH SOOD, JM
\nThe present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against
\nthe order passed by the CIT(A)-57, Mumbai, dated 21.10.2016 that
\nwas passed by him while disposing off the appeal filed by the assessee
\nunder Sec. 248 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short \u201eI-T Act\u201f). The
\nrevenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) has raised before us the
\nfollowing grounds of appeal:
\n\u201c 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
\nand in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that an amount paid by
\nReliance Jio Inf o comm L td. (\u201eRJ IL\u201f o r \u201ethe As s e s se e \u201f ) to
\nRel iance Jio I n f o c o mm P t e L t d . , ( \u201e R J P I L \u201f ) , Singapore for
\navailing bandwidth services was not liable to tax in India, as
\nRoyalty as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961
\nP a g e | 2
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\n( ‘ the Ac t ‘ ) and the Ind ia – Sing ap o r e Do ubl e T ax at io n
\nAgreement (‘DTAA’)?
\n2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
\nand in law, the Ld.CIT(A) er red in conc luding that the
\npayments made by the assessee to RJIPL for provision of
\nbandwidth services wil l be in the nature of business prof its
\nand cannot be classif ied as Royalty either under the Act or
\nthe India-Singapore DTAA ?
\n3. The Appellant prays that the- order of the CIT(A) be set aside on the
\nabove ground(s) and of the Assessing Officer be restored.
\n4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new
\nground which may be necessary.\u201d
\n2. Briefly stated, the assessee is a company incorporated in India
\nand is engaged in the business of rolling out telecom services in India.
\nIn order to avail bandwith services the assessee had entered into a
\n\u201cbandwith services\u201d agreement (for short \u201cagreement\u201d) dated 01.06.2015
\nwith Reliance Jio Infocomm Pte. Ltd. (for short \u201cRJIPL\u201d) i.e a company
\nincorporated and a tax resident of Singapore. RJIPL was holding a
\nfacility based operator license in Singapore which enabled it to
\nestablish, install, maintain, operate and provide telecommunication
\nservices in Singapore and also provide bandwith services to the service
\nrecipients across the globe. As per the terms of the aforesaid \u201eagreement\u201f
\ndated 01.06.2015, the assessee remained under an obligation to
\nwithhold tax, if any, on the payments which were to be made to RJIPL
\nfor provision of bandwith services. In pursuance of the aforesaid terms,
\nthe assessee which had remitted USD 13,45,500 to RJIPL for provision
\nof bandwith services had deposited taxes of INR Rs. 95,14,725\/- on
\n07.08.2015 @ 11.11% [i.e rate of 10% under Article 12 of the DTAA duly
\ngrossed upon in terms of Sec.195A] in terms of Sec.195 of the I-T Act.
\nHowever, the assessee thereafter holding a conviction that it was not
\nobligated to deduct tax at source under Sec.195 from the aforesaid
\npayment made to RJIPL carried the matter by way of an appeal before
\nthe CIT(A) under Sec. 248 of the I-T Act, therein claiming that no tax
\nwas required to be deducted on the aforesaid amount paid to RJIPL.
\nP a g e | 3
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\n3. The assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings
\nsubmitted before the CIT(A) that the amount remitted by it to RJIPL
\nfor provision of bandwith services was the latters business income. It
\nwas averred by the assessee that as RJIPL did not have any business
\nconnection or a Permanent Establishment (for short \u201ePE\u201f) in India,
\ntherefore, as per Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA the amount
\nremitted by the assessee to RJIPL could not have been brought to tax
\nin India. In sum and substance, it was the contention of the assessee
\nthat as the payments made to RJIPL towards bandwith services was
\nthe latters business profits, therefore, the same in the absence of its
\nPE or a business connection in India could not be taxed in India as
\nper Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Insofar the nature of the
\nbandwith services rendered by RJIPL to the assessee was concerned, it
\nwas submitted that as the provision of the said services were fully
\nautomatic and did not involve any human intervention, therefore, the
\nsame did not fall within the realm of \u201efees for technical services\u201f (for
\nshort \u201eFTS\u201f) as defined under Sec.9(1)(vii) of the I-T Act. In fact, it was
\nthe contention of the assessee that as the remittance towards
\nbandwith services was a simpliciter payment of a \u201efee\u201f for use of a
\nstandard facility that was provided to all those willing to pay for it,
\ntherefore, the same could not be held as fees received for rendering of
\ntechnical services. In support of his aforesaid contention reliance was
\nplaced by the assessee on the judgement of the Hon\u201fble Supreme
\nCourt in the case of CIT Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2010) 193 taxman 97
\n(SC). Alternatively, it was the contention of the assessee that as
\nrendering of the bandwith services by RJIPL to the assessee did not
\n\u201cmake available\u201d any technical knowledge or experience to the
\nassessee, thus the same on the said count also could not be brought
\nwithin the sweep of the definition of FTS under Article 12 of the India-
\nSingapore DTAA. Apart there from, it was submitted that the payment
\nP a g e | 4
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nmade by the assessee to RJIPL could also not be construed as
\n\u201croyalty\u201d under the I-T Act, as well as under the India-Singapore
\nDTAA. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the
\nassessee that neither RJIPL had in any way transferred all or any
\nrights in respect of any \u201cprocess\u201d to the assessee, nor was the assessee
\nmaking use of any such \u201cprocess\u201d. In sum and substance, it was the
\nclaim of the assessee that it was merely receiving standard bandwith
\nservices from RJIPL. It was the contention of the assessee that as the
\namount paid to RJIPL was neither towards use of (or obtaining right to
\nuse) industrial, commercial or scientific equipment nor towards use of
\n(or obtaining right to use) any process, therefore, the same could not
\nbe brought within the definition of the term \u201croyalty\u201d as envisaged in
\nthe I-T Act. Apart there from, it was submitted by the assessee that
\nthe consideration received by RJIPL also did not qualify as royalty as
\nper its narrow definition under the India-Singapore DTAA. It was
\nsubmitted by the assessee that for a payment to qualify as \u201croyalty\u201d
\nunder the India-Singapore DTAA, it was indispensably required that
\nthe consideration paid for the process, if any, was for a \u201csecret
\nprocess\u201d i.e the IPR in the process was owned\/registered in the name
\nof the payee. It was thus submitted by the assessee that as it had
\nmade the payment to RJIPL for availing bandwith services which were
\nstandard telecom services and not for making any use of a \u201cprocess\u201d,
\nwhether secret or not, therefore, the same clearly fell beyond the realm
\nof the definition of \u201croyalty\u201d both under the I-T Act and the India-
\nSingapore tax treaty.
\n4. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the
\nassessee observed that RJIPL did neither have any business
\nconnection or a PE in India. Accordingly, it was observed by him that
\nin the absence of any business connection or PE in India the income
\nearned by the said foreign entity under the \u201eagreement\u201f for provision of
\nP a g e | 5
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nbandwith services would not be liable to tax in India. Insofar the
\ncontentions advanced by the assessee that the payments made to
\nRJIPL were for availing standard telecom services and not by way of
\nFTS were concerned, the same did find favour with the appellate
\nauthority. In fact, the CIT(A) after deliberating on the terms of the
\n\u201eagreement\u201f observed that as the assessee was only availing standard
\nbandwith services which did not require any human intervention,
\ntherefore, the same could not be regarded as \u201etechnical services\u201f, and
\nthus the payment made by the assessee for the same could not be
\ncharacterised as FTS under Sec.9(1)(vii) of the I-T Act. Insofar the
\ndefinition of FTS envisaged in India-Singapore DTAA was concerned,
\nthe CIT(A) taking cognizance of Article 12(3) of the tax treaty observed
\nthat as RJIPL by providing bandwith services did not \u201cmake available\u201d
\nany technical knowledge, experience, skill, knowhow or process to the
\nassessee which was simply availing the said standard facility, thus the
\nsame could also not be construed as FTS under the India-Singapore
\ntax treaty.
\n5. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had only
\nreceived an access to service and not any access to any equipment
\nthat was deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith services. Apart
\nthere from, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee also did
\nnot have any access to any process which helped in providing such
\nbandwith services. In fact, it was noticed by him that all infrastructure
\nand process required for provision of bandwith services was always
\nused and had remained under the control of RJIPL and was never
\ngiven either to the assessee or to any person availing such services.
\nFurther, it was observed by the CIT(A) that as the process involved to
\nprovide the bandwith services was not \u201csecret\u201d i.e the Intellectual
\nProperty Rights (for short \u201cIPR\u201d) in the process was not
\nowned\/registered in the name of RJIPL, but was a standard
\nP a g e | 6
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\ncommercial process followed by the industry players, thus the same
\ncould not be classified as a \u201csecret process\u201d as was required under the
\nIndia-Singapore DTAA for the same to qualify as \u201croyalty. The CIT(A)
\ntaking cognizance of the definition of \u201croyalty\u201d under the India-
\nSingapore DTAA, observed that as the amount paid by the assessee to
\nRJIPL was neither towards use of (or for obtaining right to use)
\nindustrial, commercial, scientific equipment, nor towards use of (or for
\nobtaining right to use) any process, therefore, the payments made by
\nthe assessee for availing bandwith services could not be held as
\n\u201croyalty\u201d either under the I-T Act or the tax treaty. In the backdrop of
\nhis aforesaid observations the CIT(A) concluded that the payments
\nmade by the assessee to RJIPL for provision of bandwith services were
\nin the nature of \u201cbusiness profits\u201d and could not be classified as FTS
\nor royalty either under the I-T Act or India-Singapore DTAA. On the
\nbasis of his aforesaid deliberations, it was further observed by him
\nthat as RJIPL did not have any business connection or a PE in India,
\ntherefore, the business profits could not be taxed in India. In the
\nbackdrop of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) finding favour with
\nthe claim of the assessee that no tax was deductible on the
\npayment\/credit made to RJIPL, allowed the appeal.
\n6. Aggrieved, the revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) in
\nappeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short \u201eA.R\u201f) for
\nthe assessee adverted to the facts of the case and took us through the
\nrelevant observations of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under
\nconsideration. The ld. A.R took us through the \u201cGrounds of appeal\u201d
\nraised by the revenue before us and submitted that the order of CIT(A)
\nhas been assailed before us only to the extent he had concluded that
\nthe payment made by the assessee to RJIPL for providing bandwith
\nservices were in the nature of \u201cbusiness profits\u201d and could not be
\nclassified as \u201croyalty\u201d either under the I-T Act or the India-Singapore
\nP a g e | 7
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nDTAA. In sum and substance, it was the contention of the ld. A.R that
\nthe revenue has accepted the observations of the CIT(A) that the
\npayment made by the assessee to RJIPL could not be held as FTS.
\nInsofar the issue as to whether the CIT(A) was right in law and facts of
\nthe case in concluding that the amount remitted by the assessee to
\nRJIPL was not to be held \u201croyalty\u201d was concerned, the ld. A.R took us
\nthrough the definition of \u201eroyalty\u201f as envisaged in Explanation 2 to
\nSec.9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act. It was averred by the ld. A.R that as the
\nconsideration was not paid by the assessee for the use or right to use
\nany industrial, commercial or scientific equipment of RJIPL, thus the
\nsame was not covered by the definition of \u201croyalty\u201d as defined in clause
\n(iva) to Explanation 2 of Sec.9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act. Apart there from,
\nthe ld. A.R in order to buttress his claim that the payment made by
\nthe assessee for the bandwith services also did not fell within the
\nrealm of the definition of the term \u201eroyalty\u201f under Article 12(3) of the
\nIndia-Singapore DTAA, took us through the same. In fact, the ld. A.R
\nin order to fortify his aforesaid contention submitted that unlike the
\ndefinition of term \u201croyalty\u201d as used in India-Hungary DTAA wherein
\n\u201ctransmission by satellite, cable, optic fibre or similar technology…\u201d
\nwas specifically included within the definition of \u201croyalty\u201d under Article
\n12(3) of the said tax treaty, no such mention was available in the
\ndefinition of the same as envisaged in the India-Singapore Tax Treaty.
\nIt was further submitted by the ld. A.R that though the legislature in
\nall its wisdom had vide the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect
\nfrom 01.06.1976 incorporated \u201cExplanation 6\u201d to Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T
\nAct, which therein clarifies that the expression \u201cprocess\u201d includes and
\nshall be deemed to have always included transmission by satellite
\n(including up-linking, amplification, conversion for down linking of
\nany signal), cable, optic fibre or by any other similar technology,
\nwhether or not such process is secret, however, no such mention was
\nP a g e | 8
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\navailable in the narrow meaning of the term \u201croyalty\u201d in the India-
\nSingapore tax treaty. In sum and substance, it was the contention of
\nthe ld. A.R that now when the definition of \u201eroyalty\u201f as envisaged in
\nArticle 12(3) of the India-Singapore tax treaty does not provide for
\ninclusion of transmission by satellite, cable, optic fibre or by any other
\nsimilar technology within the realm of the definition of \u201croyalty\u201d,
\ntherefore, the consideration received by RJIPL from the assessee for
\nrendering of the bandwith services could not be characterised as
\nroyalty in its hands.
\n7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short \u201eD.R\u201f)
\nsubmitted that the CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal had failed to
\nconsider the definition of the term \u201eroyalty\u201f in the backdrop of
\nExplanation 5 and Explanation 6 of Sec.9(1)(vi). In sum and
\nsubstance, it was the contention of the ld. D.R that as the Explanation
\n5 and Explanation 6 of Sec. 9(1)(vi) were declaratory in nature and had
\nonly clarified the intent of the legislature, therefore, the consideration
\npaid by the assessee to RJIPL was clearly covered by the definition of
\n\u201eroyalty\u201f. Apart there from, it was averred by the ld. D.R that even if it
\nwas to be assumed that RJIPL had provided standard telecom services
\nto the assessee, even then the same as per Explanation 2 to
\nSec.9(1)(vi) and also Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA would
\nqualify as a payment of royalty by the assessee company. The ld. D.R
\nfurther adverting to the business model of RJIPL submitted that the
\nlatter in order to facilitate the provision of bandwith services had
\nestablished international connectivity points through the network of
\nsea-cables across the globe. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that for
\nproviding such international connectivity points industrial,
\ncommercial or scientific equipment in the form of sea cable network
\nsystem(optic fibre telecommunication network) and other sophisticated
\nscientific apparatus was deployed and used in Indian Sea and Indian
\nP a g e | 9
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nterritory called \u201elanding points systems\u201f. It was submitted by the ld.
\nD.R that as RJIPL would require association of domestic companies in
\norder to work as an intermediary for interconnecting offshore sea cable
\nnetwork and associated infrastructure\/equipment systems in India,
\ntherefore, it could safely be concluded that it had a fixed place of
\nbusiness in India. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contention, it was
\nsubmitted by the ld. D.R. that the observations of the CIT(A) that all
\ninfrastructure and process required for providing of bandwith services
\nwas always used under the control of RJIPL and the same was never
\ngiven to the assessee or to any other person availing such services,
\nwas found to be incorrect. Apart there from, it was the contention of
\nthe ld. D.R that as the assessee company had the \u201cright to use\u201d and
\nhad used \u201cthe process\u201d during the course of bandwith network
\ntransmission\/receiving bandwith services, therefore, as per Article 12
\nof the DTAA and Explanation 5 and Explanation 6 of Sec. 9(1)(vi) of
\nthe I-T Act, the payment made by the assessee to RJIPL for availing
\nsuch bandwith services was clearly in the nature of royalty. Further,
\nthe ld. D.R also did put up an effort to distinguish the case laws relied
\nupon by the assessee in the course of hearing of the appeal.
\n8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the
\nparties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material
\navailable on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by
\nthem. We find that our indulgence in the present appeal has been
\nsought by the revenue to adjudicate as to whether the CIT(A) is correct
\nin concluding that the amount paid by the assessee for availing
\nbandwith services to RJIPL did not constitute \u201croyalty\u201d and was its
\n\u201cbusiness profits\u201d. Admittedly, as the revenue has not assailed the
\nobservations of the CIT(A) that the payments made by the assessee to
\nRJIPL cannot be held as FTS, therefore, we confine ourselves to the
\nissue to the extent the same has been assailed by the revenue before
\nP a g e | 10
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nus. As is discernible from the record, the assessee pursuant to the
\nterms of the \u201eagreement\u201f had only received standard facilities i.e
\nbandwith services from RJIPL. In fact, as observed by the CIT(A), the
\nassessee only had an access to services and did not have any access to
\nany equipment deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith services.
\nApart there from, the assessee also did not have any access to any
\nprocess which helped in providing of such bandwith services by RJIPL.
\nAs a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for
\nprovision of bandwith services was always used and under the control
\nof RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to
\nany other person availing the said services. We are persuaded to
\nsubscribe to the observations of the CIT(A) that as the process
\ninvolved to provide the bandwith services was not a \u201csecret\u201d i.e IPR in
\nthe process was not owned\/registered in the name of RJIPL, but was a
\nstandard commercial process that was followed by the industry
\nplayers, therefore, the same could not be classified as a \u201csecret
\nprocess\u201d which would have been required for charactering the
\naforesaid payment made by the assessee to RJIPL as \u201croyalty\u201d under
\nthe India-Singapore DTAA. We are further in agreement with the view
\ntaken by the CIT(A) that as the amount paid by the assessee to RJIPL
\nwas neither towards use of (or for obtaining right to use) Industrial,
\ncommercial or scientific equipment, nor towards use of (or for
\nobtaining right to use) any secret formula or process, therefore, the
\nsame could not be classified as payment of \u201croyalty\u201d by the assessee.
\nInsofar the ld. D.R had tried to press into service Explanation 6 to Sec.
\n9(1)(vi), in order to drive home his contention that the payment made
\nby the assessee to RJIPL for availing the bandwith services would fall
\nwithin the sweep of \u201eroyalty\u201f is concerned, we are unable to persuade
\nourselves to accept the same. In our considered view, the amendment
\nin Sec. 9(1)(vi) will not have any bearing on the definition of \u201eroyalty\u201f as
\nP a g e | 11
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\ncontemplated in the India-Singapore DTAA. Our aforesaid view is
\nfortified by the order of the Hon\u201fble High Court of Bombay in the case
\nof The Commissioner of Income-tax (IT)-4 Vs. M\/s Reliance Infocomm
\nLtd. (ITA No, 1395 of 2016, dated 05.02.2019). The Hon\u201fble High Court
\nin its aforesaid judgment had after referring to the judgments of the
\nHon\u201fble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite
\nBV (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del) and CIT Vs. Aktiongesellschaft (2009)
\n310 ITR 320 (Del), had after deliberating on the amendment made
\navailable on the statute by the Explanation 6 to Sec. 9(1)(vi), observed
\nthat mere amendment in the I-T Act would not override the provisions
\nof DTAA treaties. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we
\nshall now further deliberate on the definition of \u201eroyalty\u201f as
\ncontemplated in the India-Singapore tax treaty. In our considered view
\nthere is substantial force in the contention advanced by the ld. A.R
\nthat though the term \u201croyalty\u201d as used in Article 12 of India-Hungary
\nDTAA takes within its sweep \u201c…transmission by satellite, cable, optic
\nfibre or similar technology\u201d, however, the definition of \u201eroyalty\u201f in the
\nIndia-Singapore tax treaty with which we are concerned has a narrow
\nmeaning. In fact, we find that despite the fact that the India-Singapore
\ntax treaty was amended by Notification No. SO 935(E), dated
\n23.03.2017, however, the definition of \u201eroyalty\u201f therein envisaged had
\nnot been tinkered with and remains as such. We thus in terms of our
\naforesaid observations are of the considered view that the amount
\nreceived by RJIPL from the assessee for providing standard bandwith
\nservices could not be characterised as \u201eroyalty\u201f as per the India-
\nSingapore DTAA, and as rightly observed by the CIT(A), was in fact the
\n\u201cbusiness profits\u201d of RJIPL. Insofar the taxability of the aforesaid
\n\u201cbusiness profits\u201d is concerned, we find that as RJIPL did not have any
\nbusiness connection or a PE in India, therefore, the same as per
\nP a g e | 12
\nITA No. 936\/Mum\/2017 A.Y. 2016-17
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income tax (IT)-4(1)(1) Vs. M\/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
\nArticle 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA could not have been brought to
\ntax in India.
\n9. The order of the CIT(A) that amount received by RJIPL from the
\nassessee for providing standard bandwith services was its \u201ebusiness
\nprofits\u201f, which in the absence of its business connection or PE in India
\ncould not be brought to tax in India is upheld in terms of our aforesaid
\nobservations and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
\n10. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid
\nobservations.
\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 10.05.2019
\nSd\/- Sd\/-
\n(M.Balaganesh) (Ravish Sood)
\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
\n\u092d \u0941\u0902\u092b\u0908 Mumbai; \u0926\u0926\u0928 \u0941\u0902\u0915 10.05.2019
\nPs. Rohit
\n\u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u0915\u0940 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0932\u0931\u092a\u093f \u0905\u0917\u094d\u0930\u0947\u092a\u093f\u093f\/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
\n1. \u0905\u0929\u0940\u0930 \u0925\u0940 \/ The Appellant
\n2. \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u094d\u092e\u0925\u0940 \/ The Respondent.
\n3. \u0906\u092e\u0915\u092f \u0906\u092e \u0915\u094d\u0924(\u0905\u0929\u0940\u0930) \/ The CIT(A)-
\n4. \u0906\u092e\u0915\u092f \u0906\u092e \u0915\u094d\u0924 \/ CIT
\n5. \u0935\u093f\u092c \u0917\u0940\u092e \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u0924\u0924\u0928\u0927\u0927, \u0906\u092e\u0915\u092f \u0905\u0929\u0940\u0930\u0940\u092e \u0905\u0927\u0927\u0915\u092f\u0923, \u092d \u0941\u0902\u092b\u0908 \/ DR,
\nITAT, Mumbai
\n6. \u0917 \u0930\u094d\u0921 \u092a \u0908\u0930 \/ Guard file.
\n\u0938\u0924\u094d\u092e \u0935\u0929\u0924 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u0924 \/\/True Copy\/\/
\n\u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936\u093e\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930\/ BY ORDER,
\n\u0909\u093f\/\u0938\u0939\u093e\u092f\u0915 \u093f\u0902\u091c\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 (Dy.\/Asstt. Registrar)
\n\u0906\u092f\u0915\u0930 \u0905\u093f\u0940\u0931\u0940\u092f \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0915\u0930\u0923, \u092d \u0941\u0902\u092b\u0908 \/ ITAT, Mumbai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The assessee pursuant to the terms of the “agreement\u201f had only received standard facilities i.e bandwith services from RJIPL. In fact, as observed by the CIT(A), the assessee only had an access to services and did not have any access to any equipment deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith services. Apart there from, the assessee also did not have any access to any process which helped in providing of such bandwith services by RJIPL. As a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services<\/p>\n