IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5246/MUM/2025 ITA No.5252/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

ITA No.5247/MUM/2025 ITA No.5253/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

ITA No.5248/MUM/2025 ITA No.5254/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

ITA No.5249/MUM/2025 ITA No.5255/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

ITA No.5250/MUM/2025 ITA No.5256/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

ITA No.5251/MUM/2025 ITA No.5257/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(2)(2), Room No.621, D, Kautilya Bhawan, ............... Appellant G-Block, BKC, Mumbai v/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Times of India Building, D.N. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400001 PAN : AAACB4373Q Assessee by : Shri Ajit Jain Ms. Riddhi Soni Shri Jeet Gada Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 07/01/2026 Date of Order - 14/01/2026

O R D E R

PER BENCH:

The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 27/06/2025, passed under section 248 read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 55, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

2. Since the issue raised in all these appeals by the Revenue is similar, arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order.

3. As the Revenue has raised similar grounds in all these appeals, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.5246/Mum/2025 are reproduced as follows for ready reference: -

“1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source w/s 195 of the Act on payments made to intelsat UK, for transponder charges on the ground that the payment did not constitute royalty u/s. 9(1)

(vi) of the Act or under the India-UK DTAA?"

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in in not taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of Royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?"

3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does not provide a new law?"

4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term ‘process' is not defined in Article 13 of India -UK DTAA and hence its meaning has to be derived from the domestic law of India as required by Article 3(3) of India UK DTAA?"

5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term 'process' as provided in Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the that term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence the meaning for purpose of Article 13 of India-UK DTAA as prescribed by Article

3(3) of India - UK DTAA"

4. In sum and substance, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue before us is whether the assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act on payment of transponder charges/trans