Dated 13[Th] December, 2021 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Itat’) In Ita v. Dit (2011) 332 Itr 340 (Del)_ And _Director Of International Taxation Vs. New_

$~43 & 44 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 346/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONALTAXATION)-2 ..... AppellantThrough:Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate forMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.StandingCounsel for the Revenue.versus INTELSAT CORPORATION..... RespondentThrough:Mr.S.S.Tomar with Mr.Vishal Kalra,Advocates. +ITA 347/2022COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONALTAXATION)-2 ..... AppellantThrough:Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate forMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.StandingCounsel for the Revenue.versus INTELSAT CORPORATION..... RespondentThrough:Mr.S.S.Tomar with Mr.Vishal Kalra,Advocates. %Date of Decision: 21[st]September, 2022 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMOHAN, J (Oral): J U D G M E N T 1.Present income tax appeals have been filed challenging the orderdated 13[th]December, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4946/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 andthe order dated 11[th]October, 2021 in ITA No. 3199/Del./2018 for theAssessment Year 2015-16. 2.Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred inholding that the amount received by the Intelsat Corporation, USA for leaseof transponder facility are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vi) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) read with Article 12(3) of the DTAAbetween India and USA as royalty. She states that the ITAT has erred innot appreciating that amount received by Intelsat Corporation, USArepresented income by the way of royalty as defined in Explanation 2 readwith 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 notappreciatingthatthetransmissionofsignals/datathroughsatellitetransponder would fall within the meaning of word process, as appearing inClauses (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 arecovered by the decision of this Court in assessee’s own case in ITA900/2019 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein this Courtdismissed an appeal of the Revenue on similar grounds relying on thedecisions in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT(2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del) and Director of International Taxation Vs. New ITA Nos.346-347/2022 Page 2 of 3 Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 Del. 4.Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has notaccepted the aforesaid decisions and has preferred SLPs against the same. 5.Though the appeals in the aforementioned cases are pendingadjudication, yet there is no stay of the said judgments till date. 6.Consequently, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Courtin Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala And Another, (2000) 6SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South IndiaTrust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, theissues raised in the present appeals are covered by the judgment passed bythe learned predecessor Division Bench. 7.Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration inthe present appeals and the same are dismissed. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2022KA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J ITA Nos.346-347/2022