IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT
K.R. SHRIRAM & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
CIT v. Interoute Communications Ltd.
ITA No. 519 of 2018
19 July, 2023
Appellant by: Suresh Kumar.
Respondent by: None.
1. The following substantial questions of law are proposed:-
(a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, Honble Tribunal has erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 12,65,32,280 received from Indian customers for use of Virtual Voice Network (VVN is not taxable as Royalty under article 13(3) of India-U.K. Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)?
(b) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, Honble Tribunal has failed to notice that the above payments are covered under the definition of Royalty under India-U.K. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, as payment received for use of, or right to use, of process and use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment under article 13(3) of India- U.K. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement?
(c) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, Honble Tribunal has erred in applying decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, Whereas Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore PTE Ltd.(2014) 361 ITR 575 (Mad) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0077 (Mad-HC), in similar situation has held such payment to be covered under definition of Royalty?