##PAGE1##

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण

धि्ቤी पीठ “डी”, धि्ቤी

्ቦी धिकास अि्ቝी, ्቗ाधयक सि्ቧ एिं

्ቦी ्ቜजेश कु मार स िंह, लेखाकार सि्ቧ के सम्ቌ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आअसं.2353

और

2674/धि्ቤी/2023( नि.व. 2020-21

और

2021-22)

ITA Nos. 2353 & 2674/DEL/2023(A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22)

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Ltd.,

15, DAI Kawai Street, TAI PO Industrial Estate, NT,

Hong Kong, 999999

PAN: AADCA-7848-N ...... Appellant

अपीला्वी/

Vs.

बिाम

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

International Taxation 1(1)(1), Civic Centre,

Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 ..... Respondent

्ቚनिवादी/

अपीला्वी ्ቛारा/ Appellant by: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with

Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, Advocates

्ቚधििािी्ቛारा Respondent by: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

/

Date of hearing : 10/12/2025

सुिवाई की निथ्व/

Date of pronouncement : 19/12/2025

घोषणा की निथ्व/

ORDER

आदेश/

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

These two appeals by the assessee for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22 are taken up

together as the issue in both appeals germinate from identical set of facts. Hence,

these appeals are decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convivence appeal for AY 2020-21 is taken up as a lead case,

hence, the facts are narrated from said appeal.

2

ITA Nos. 2674 & 2353/DEL/2023(A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22)

ITA No.2353/Del/2023 AY (2020-21)

3. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Assessment Order dated

29.06.2023 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income TaxAct,1961(hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2020-21.

4. The assessee has filed an application dated 01.02.2024 for admission of

additional ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee made statement at Bar

that he is not pressing said application. In light of the statement made by ld. Counsel

for the assessee, the application filed under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate

Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional ground of appeal is dismissed as

not pressed.

5. The primary issue involved in appeal is nature of receipts by the

assessee/appellant from India for providing satellite transmission services. The

assessee has claimed the said receipts as not taxable in India under India-Hong Kong

Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Whereas, the Assessing Officer (AO) has

held the said receipts as ‘process royalty’ as well as ‘equipment royalty’ u/s.9(1)(vi)

of the Act and also under Article 12 of India-Hong Kong DTAA. The facts of the case

in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee is a tax resident of Hong Kong.

The assessee is engaged in the business of providing satellite transponder capacity

to its customers across the world including India. The assessee does not have any

satellite in India or Indian orbital slots, nor does the assessee has any equipment or

any office in India. All other infrastructures/equipment used for the purpose of

providing such services are located outside India. These facts are not under dispute.

3

ITA Nos. 2674 & 2353/DEL/2023(A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22)

As part of assessee’s business activities, assessee’s customers uplinks signals

through “uplink facilities” owned by said customers after encryption to the

assessee’s satellites located outside India. Once the signals reach the satellite, the

transponder amplifies these encrypted signals and, thereafter, downlinks the same

over the area covered by satellite beam. Thereafter, the signals are decrypted and

transmitted by the intend recipients as per their business requirement using their

own equipment. The aforementioned services are collectively referred to as

“Satellite Transmission Services” for which assessee charges fee from Indian

customers. The said fee has been held to be process royalty/equipment royalty by

the AO.

6. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted

that, identical issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

assessee’s own case reported as 197 Taxman 263(Del.). T