Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16162.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 261 Views


The Tax Publishers ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India [W.P. (C) Nos. 2384 & 2397 of 2015, CM Nos. 4277 to 4298 of 2015, dt. 23-3-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2166 (Del-HC) Whether non-resident firm can fall in the scope of section 144C(15)(b) *Facts:* Assessee ESPN Star Sports Mauritius and ESPN star sports were two non-resident partnership firm based out of Mauritius. It had entered into an agreement with ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. to share revenues arising out of advertisement slots and broadcast channels in India. Both firms claimed in the return that such revenue from broad casting and advertisement were exempt in India due to the absence of a PE vide article 7 of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA. Assessing officer referred the case to the TPO who confirmed ALP of the actual transactions without any disturbance. Assessing officer then treated the two firms as foreign companies and then passed an order under ignoring the above fact with some additions. On appeal DRP confirmed that they did not have jurisdiction as the two entities were firms and not companies and declined to opine on the order under section 144C(15)(b). The Assessing officer then passed his final order based on the DRP's disclaimer. Aggrieved assessee's went in further appeal to the high court on a writ. Held the writ was admitted quashing the assessing officer's order as it lacked procedural weakness as DRP itself could not be referred to due to assessee's being ineligible assessee's as per section 144C(15)(b).

The Tax Publishers

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India [W.P. (C) Nos. 2384 & 2397 of 2015, CM Nos. 4277 to 4298 of 2015, dt. 23-3-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2166 (Del-HC)

Whether non-resident firm can fall in the scope of section 144C(15)(b)

Facts:

Assessee ESPN Star Sports Mauritius and ESPN star sports were two non-resident partnership firm based out of Mauritius. It had entered into an agreement with ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. to share revenues arising out of advertisement slots and broadcast channels in India. Both firms claimed in the return that such revenue from broad casting and advertisement were exempt in India due to the absence of a PE vide article 7 of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA. Assessing officer referred the case to the TPO who confirmed ALP of the actual transactions without any disturbance. Assessing officer then treated the two firms as foreign companies and then passed an order under ignoring the above fact with some additions. On appeal DRP confirmed that they did not have jurisdiction as the two entities were firms and not companies and declined to opine on the order under section 144C(15)(b). The Assessing officer then passed his final order based on the DRP's disclaimer. Aggrieved assessee's went in further appeal to the high court on a writ.

Held the writ was admitted quashing the assessing officer's order as it lacked procedural weakness as DRP itself could not be referred to due to assessee's being ineligible assessee's as per section 144C(15)(b).