Held that that, in an appeal under section 260A, the court could not verify whether in the earlier assessment years, there was a final determination that the entity IC was not liable to pay tax which required verification by the lower authorities. That none of the authorities below had examined and analysed the various clauses of the agreement whidki provided for the scope of services to be rendered by IC to the assessee, to ascertain the nature of the services rendered to the assessee and how the definition of “royalty” under the Act or under article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement could be made applicable to such services. It was incumbent upon the three authorities, the assessing authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal to have examined and analysed the nature of services as agreed upon by the parties in the agreement, to thereafter give a finding of fact and then apply the definition of “royalty” under the Act or under article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. How the services rendered to the assessee by IC were covered by the Act or article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was not discussed. The orders of the three authorities were non-speaking. Maatter remanded to the CIT(A). The court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and on the applicability of article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement to the nature of services rendered by the foreign entity to the assessee. The assessee and the Revenue were at liberty to raise all the contentions on the liability to tax under the Act or article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals). The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and on applicability of article 12(3) of the DTAA to the nature of services rendered by the foreign entity to the assessee. The assessee and the revenue were at liberty to raise all the contentions on the liability to tax under the Act or article 12(3) of the DTAA. (AY. 2009-10 to 2013-14)
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 781 /174 taxmann.com 389 (Bom)(HC)
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Non speaking order-Deduction of tax at source-Payment to non-resident-Application for certificate of nil deduction Royalty-Matter remanded to the CIT(A)-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), Expln. 6, 195(2),254(1), Art. 12(3)2.]