I pay a foreign satellite operator for transponder capacity — has the 2012 amendment to section 9(1)(vi) turned that into royalty under the treaty as well?
No. The Delhi High Court held on 8 February 2016 that the Explanations inserted in section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 cannot change the meaning of "royalty" in a double taxation avoidance agreement. A treaty is concluded between two sovereign states and can be altered only by them; a unilateral amendment of domestic law, however clearly it expresses the government's discomfort, does not rewrite Article 12. So the interpretation in Asia Satellite Communications — that payments for data transmission through transponder capacity are not royalty, the process referred to being a secret process — continues to govern years before the 2012 amendment and every case involving a treaty. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; S. Ravindra Bhat and R.K. Gauba JJ; judgment delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J. Reserved 30 November 2015, pronounced 8 February 2016) on 2016-02-08, reported as ITA 473/2012, ITA 474/2012, ITA 500/2012 and ITA 244/2014, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. It bears on section 9(1)(vi), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in How Tax Law Is Read and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
The Finance Act 2012 inserted Explanations 4, 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) expressly to undo the line of decisions holding transponder and bandwidth payments not to be royalty. This judgment marks the limit of that exercise. It is the authority for the proposition that a domestic amendment, retrospective or not, does not travel into a treaty definition, and it is used far beyond satellites — for software, bandwidth, and any case where the department relies on an Explanation to reach a non-resident protected by a treaty. It also contains a careful passage on when punctuation may be used to construe a provision: the test is not whether the sentence makes grammatical sense without the comma but whether its presence or absence produces different legal consequences. The comma after "process" in Article 12 matters; its absence in Explanation 2(iii) does not settle the treaty's meaning.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. is a Thai company and New Skies Satellite B.V. a Netherlands company; both provide digital broadcasting services from geostationary satellites whose footprint covers India. Their customers, resident and non-resident television channels, uplink programme content to the satellite, whose transponder receives, amplifies, shifts the frequency of and retransmits the signal over the footprint, where cable operators pick it up and relay it to viewers. The customer takes transmission capacity; it never has physical possession of the transponder and the satellite is operated throughout by the owner. Both companies filed nil returns. The Assessing Officer, in assessments under section 143(3) read with section 144C, held the receipts taxable as royalty under Explanation 2(iii) and (iva) to section 9(1)(vi) and under Article 12 of the India-Thailand and India-Netherlands treaties. The assessment years were 2007-08 and 2009-10 for Shin and 2006-07 and 2008-09 for New Skies. The Tribunal reversed those orders following Asia Satellite Communications Co. Ltd. v. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del), and the Revenue appealed under section 260A. While the appeals were pending the Finance Act 2012 amended section 9(1)(vi) by inserting Explanations 4, 5 and 6.
The question of law was answered against the Revenue and the appeals were dismissed, without any order as to costs. The Finance Act 2012 does not affect Article 12 of the treaties. It follows that the interpretation of "royalty" in Asia Satellite Communications, given when the domestic and treaty definitions were pari materia, continues to hold the field for assessment years preceding the Finance Act 2012 and in all cases involving a double taxation avoidance agreement — unless the treaties themselves are amended jointly by both parties to bring income from data transmission services within royalty. The Court recorded expressly that it returned no finding on whether the amendment is retrospective and applicable to periods before the Finance Act 2012 in cases where there is no treaty.
The Court's central proposition is about the relationship between statute and treaty. A treaty is an agreement between two sovereign states, and a change in the executive's position — including India's altered position on the OECD Commentary — cannot work a unilateral legislative amendment of it. A change to domestic law made to correct what the state regards as a mistaken interpretation does not carry into the international instrument; for that, the agreement itself must be amended. So whatever the Explanations did to section 9(1)(vi), Article 12 was untouched. On the meaning of Article 12 the Court took the definition as it stands. It noted the one textual difference between the treaty and Explanation 2(iii) — the comma after "process" in the treaty — and considered how far punctuation may be used in construction. The general rule is that words control punctuation; the exception is a provision that is carefully punctuated, and the test for that is whether punctuating it differently would produce different legal consequences rather than merely different grammar. Here it would, so the comma carries weight, and there was in any event sufficient material to conclude that the process referred to in Article 12 was always meant to be a secret process. That conclusion is supported by the OECD Commentary, which says that payments under transponder leasing agreements are not royalty because the customer acquires transmission capacity rather than the transponder and no satellite technology is transferred, and by Klaus Vogel, who treats the use of a satellite as a service and not a rental unless direction and control of the satellite pass to the user. The Tribunal had been wrong to discard those materials: where treaty and Act use the same technical terms, the settled international meaning may be used to construe them.
A change in executive position cannot bring about a unilateral legislative amendment into a treaty concluded between two sovereign states.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Delhi High Court held on 8 February 2016 that the Explanations inserted in section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 cannot change the meaning of "royalty" in a double taxation avoidance agreement. A treaty is concluded between two sovereign states and can be altered only by them; a unilateral amendment of domestic law, however clearly it expresses the government's discomfort, does not rewrite Article 12. So the interpretation in Asia Satellite Communications — that payments for data transmission through transponder capacity are not royalty, the process referred to being a secret process — continues to govern years before the 2012 amendment and every case involving a treaty. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; S. Ravindra Bhat and R.K. Gauba JJ; judgment delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J. Reserved 30 November 2015, pronounced 8 February 2016) and bears on section 9(1)(vi), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA 473/2012, ITA 474/2012, ITA 500/2012 and ITA 244/2014, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The Finance Act 2012 inserted Explanations 4, 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) expressly to undo the line of decisions holding transponder and bandwidth payments not to be royalty. This judgment marks the limit of that exercise. It is the authority for the proposition that a domestic amendment, retrospective or not, does not travel into a treaty definition, and it is used far beyond satellites — for software, bandwidth, and any case where the department relies on an Explanation to reach a non-resident protected by a treaty. It also contains a careful passage on when punctuation may be used to construe a provision: the test is not whether the sentence makes grammatical sense without the comma but whether its presence or absence produces different legal consequences. The comma after "process" in Article 12 matters; its absence in Explanation 2(iii) does not settle the treaty's meaning. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Where the payee is in a treaty country, argue the treaty definition first and treat the section 9(1)(vi) Explanations as irrelevant to it — that is the ratio here.
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. is a Thai company and New Skies Satellite B.V. a Netherlands company; both provide digital broadcasting services from geostationary satellites whose footprint covers India. Their customers, resident and non-resident television channels, uplink programme content to the satellite, whose transponder receives, amplifies, shifts the frequency of and retransmits the signal over the footprint, where cable operators pick it up and relay it to viewers. The customer takes transmission capacity; it never has physical possession of the transponder and the satellite is operated throughout by the owner. Both companies filed nil returns. The Assessing Officer, in assessments under section 143(3) read with section 144C, held the receipts taxable as royalty under Explanation 2(iii) and (iva) to section 9(1)(vi) and under Article 12 of the India-Thailand and India-Netherlands treaties. The assessment years were 2007-08 and 2009-10 for Shin and 2006-07 and 2008-09 for New Skies. The Tribunal reversed those orders following Asia Satellite Communications Co. Ltd. v. DIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del), and the Revenue appealed under section 260A. While the appeals were pending the Finance Act 2012 amended section 9(1)(vi) by inserting Explanations 4, 5 and 6. The matter was decided on 2016-02-08 by the High Court (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; S. Ravindra Bhat and R.K. Gauba JJ; judgment delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J. Reserved 30 November 2015, pronounced 8 February 2016). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The question of law was answered against the Revenue and the appeals were dismissed, without any order as to costs. The Finance Act 2012 does not affect Article 12 of the treaties. It follows that the interpretation of "royalty" in Asia Satellite Communications, given when the domestic and treaty definitions were pari materia, continues to hold the field for assessment years preceding the Finance Act 2012 and in all cases involving a double taxation avoidance agreement — unless the treaties themselves are amended jointly by both parties to bring income from data transmission services within royalty. The Court recorded expressly that it returned no finding on whether the amendment is retrospective and applicable to periods before the Finance Act 2012 in cases where there is no treaty.
The Court's central proposition is about the relationship between statute and treaty. A treaty is an agreement between two sovereign states, and a change in the executive's position — including India's altered position on the OECD Commentary — cannot work a unilateral legislative amendment of it. A change to domestic law made to correct what the state regards as a mistaken interpretation does not carry into the international instrument; for that, the agreement itself must be amended. So whatever the Explanations did to section 9(1)(vi), Article 12 was untouched. On the meaning of Article 12 the Court took the definition as it stands. It noted the one textual difference between the treaty and Explanation 2(iii) — the comma after "process" in the treaty — and considered how far punctuation may be used in construction. The general rule is that words control punctuation; the exception is a provision that is carefully punctuated, and the test for that is whether punctuating it differently would produce different legal consequences rather than merely different grammar. Here it would, so the comma carries weight, and there was in any event sufficient material to conclude that the process referred to in Article 12 was always meant to be a secret process. That conclusion is supported by the OECD Commentary, which says that payments under transponder leasing agreements are not royalty because the customer acquires transmission capacity rather than the transponder and no satellite technology is transferred, and by Klaus Vogel, who treats the use of a satellite as a service and not a rental unless direction and control of the satellite pass to the user. The Tribunal had been wrong to discard those materials: where treaty and Act use the same technical terms, the settled international meaning may be used to construe them. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "A change in executive position cannot bring about a unilateral legislative amendment into a treaty concluded between two sovereign states."
It was decided by the High Court on 2016-02-08 and is reported as ITA 473/2012, ITA 474/2012, ITA 500/2012 and ITA 244/2014, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 9(1)(vi), section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The question of law was answered against the Revenue and the appeals were dismissed, without any order as to costs. The Finance Act 2012 does not affect Article 12 of the treaties. It follows that the interpretation of "royalty" in Asia Satellite Communications, given when the domestic and treaty definitions were pari materia, continues to hold the field for assessment years preceding the Finance Act 2012 and in all cases involving a double taxation avoidance agreement — unless the treaties themselves are amended jointly by both parties to bring income from data transmission services within royalty. The Court recorded expressly that it returned no finding on whether the amendment is retrospective and applicable to periods before the Finance Act 2012 in cases where there is no treaty. It arises in How Tax Law Is Read and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 9(1)(vi), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; S. Ravindra Bhat and R.K. Gauba JJ; judgment delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J. Reserved 30 November 2015, pronounced 8 February 2016. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Establish the facts that take the payment out of royalty: the customer gets transmission capacity, not possession of the transponder, the satellite stays under the operator's control, and no technology is transferred. Use the OECD Commentary and Klaus Vogel on the treaty terms; the Court held that where the treaty and the Act use the same technical terms, the internationally accepted meaning may be relied on. If there is no treaty, do not assume this judgment helps — the Court expressly refrained from deciding whether the 2012 amendment is retrospective in a purely domestic case.
Still good law. A Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court of 8 February 2016. No citator check for any appeal or later contrary authority was possible; only the judgment text was before me. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested text is heavily clipped: about 55,352 characters from the middle are missing, which carried the bulk of the Court's discussion of the Finance Act 2012 Explanations, the retrospectivity argument under domestic law and much of the treaty analysis. What remains is the framing of the questions, the facts, and the concluding section from the punctuation discussion through to the operative order, which states the ratio. Two limits on the decision itself: the Court did not decide whether the 2012 amendment is retrospective where no treaty applies, and it did not deal with the position under section 195 for the Indian payer. A transcription slip in the text describes New Skies as the assessee in "ITA 473/2014" where the table and the cause title show ITA 473/2012. No reporter citations were harvested; the appeal numbers come from the judgment's own heading. The same judgment appears twice in this batch, under this slug and under dit-v-new-skies-satellite-bv. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The question of law was answered against the Revenue and the appeals were dismissed, without any order as to costs. The Finance Act 2012 does not affect Article 12 of the treaties. It follows that the interpretation of "royalty" in Asia Satellite Communications, given when the domestic and treaty definitions were pari materia, continues to hold the field for assessment years preceding the Finance Act 2012 and in all cases involving a double taxation avoidance agreement — unless the treaties themselves are amended jointly by both parties to bring income from data transmission services within royalty. The Court recorded expressly that it returned no finding on whether the amendment is retrospective and applicable to periods before the Finance Act 2012 in cases where there is no treaty.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?
The Tribunal recalled its whole order on my miscellaneous application. Will that recall survive?
You pay a foreign supplier for software. Is that royalty, and must you deduct TDS?
We run a shopping mall. Is the income business income or income from house property?