+ Ita 232/2025 The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc

$~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 232/2025THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONALTAXATION -3THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONALTAXATION -3 .....AppellantThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr. AnantMann, JSC and Mr. P. Gupta, JSC forappellant.Mann, JSC and Mr. P. Gupta, JSC forappellant. versus TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC. .....Respondent Through:Mr. Rohan Khare and Mr. PriyamBhatnagar, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMARO R D E R04.08.2025 % -CM APPL. 41244/2025 (Condonation of delay in refiling) 1.For the reasons stated in the instant application, the delay of 1070days in re-filing the above captioned appeal is condoned. The same isallowed. 2.The present application is disposed of. ITA 232/2025 3.The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 08.12.2021 in ITA No.4325/DEL/2018 which is for the assessment year 2014-2015. 4.At the outset, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia submits that the issue in hand iscovered by the judgment of this Court in respect of the very same assessee for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, whereby, this Court hasdecided the ITA 76/2025 and ITA 77/2025, vide order dated 26.03.2025 bystating in paras 12 onwards as under:- “12. It is material to note that in respect of the attribution ofincome which is chargeable to tax under the Act, the competentauthorities of the United States of America and India had takenrecourse to Mutual Agreement Procedure whereby theissues regarding applicability of the DTAA were resolved bynegotiations.Admittedly,theassesseehadacceptedtheoutcome of MAP in respect of the prior assessment years.13. There is no cavil that the nature of the revenue which isnow sought to be taxed in AY 20-21 and AY 21-22 was similarto the revenue that was subject matter of MAP. It is correct thatthe issues determined under MAP are in relation to the specificassessmentyearsandsuchdeterminationcannotbeextrapolated to other assessment years. However, the nature ofincome in the hands of the assessee remains the same.Undisputedly, the receipts in the earlier assessment years,which were subject of resolution under MAP, arise from thesame agreement(s). In the given facts, this court cannot beoblivious to the fact that the Revenue had accepted income ofthe assessee as business income. 14.Thus, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we are ofthe view that no substantial questions of law arise forconsideration of this court.15.Accordingly,thepresentappealsaredismissed.However, we clarify that the wider question of law is left opento be decided in an appropriate case.” 5.For parity of reasons, in the peculiar facts of this case, we are of theview that the following substantial questions of law which have beenprojected by the appellant/Revenue do not call for consideration of thisCourt in this appeal. “2.1 Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in holding that the distributionrevenue earned by the Assessee is not taxable as royalty undersection 9(l)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the DTAA betweenIndia and the USA but is taxable as business income?2.2 Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case andin law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in determining the income of theassessee company in assessment year under consideration byfollowingtheresolutionmadeunderMutualAgreementProcedure (MAP) in respect of earlier years in assessee's owncase, even as the resolution under MAP is limited only toassessment years under consideration in MAP and does notapply to other assessment years in its own case, even underidentical facts.” 6.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. However, we clarifythat the wider question of law is left open to be decided in an appropriatecase. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J AUGUST 04, 2025 rk VINOD KUMAR, J