TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. There were no good reasons to disregard the existence of assessee company. Therefore, assessee is not a conduit of STAR Ltd. and that income from sales revenue of advertisement belonged to assessee and had to be assessed in its name. It was also observed that whether advertisement revenue was taxed in the hands of the assessee company or STAR Ltd. there was no tax avoidance. Other grounds of appeal are restored to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 3707 (MUM.) OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2011 - R.V. EASWAR, RAJENDRA SINGH, JJ. Divesh Chawla for the Appellant. Ms. Malathi Shridharan for the Respondent. ORDER Rajendra Singh, Accountant Member This a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following the decision taken in assessment order for the year 1998-99 held that the assessee was a conduit for its holding company i.e. Satellite Television Asia Region Ltd. (STAR Ltd.). The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had a P.E. in India and was not eligible for benefits/provisions of Circular No. 742. The Assessing Officer assessed the income returned in case of assessee on protective basis after holding that the income belonged to STAR Ltd. 3. The assessee disputed the decision of the Assessing Officer and submitted before the CIT(A) that the assessee was a separate legal entity incorporated in Netherlands and, therefore, was required to be assessed separately under the provisions of law. It was pointed out that e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e view taken by authorities below has not been up held. The Tribunal held that the income from advertising times belonged to the assessee and has to be taxed on substantive basis in its name. The ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue was covered. 5. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. We have gone through the order dated 21.5.2010 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1840/Mum/04 for the Assessment Year 1998-99 in assessee's own case. The Tribunal observed in the said order that the perception of the revenue that STAR Ltd. was deriving tax advantage by inserting the assessee company as a link in chain of entities to get advertisement revenues was not correct. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in 1998-99 (supra), we hold that assessee is not a conduit of STAR Ltd. and that income from sales revenue of advertisement belonged to assessee and had to be assessed in its name. 6. In ground No. 2 the assessee has raised dispute that CIT(A) has erred in holding that SIPL was a dependent agent of STAR Ltd. On perusal of order of CIT(A) we note that no such finding has been given by CIT(A). We therefore, dismiss the ground raised by the assessee as infructuous. 7. In ground No. 3, the dispute raised by the assessee is that CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate remaining grounds of assessee relating to 'permanent establishment' (PE), taxability as per provisions of Circular 742 of CBDT, computation of taxable profits on ad hoc basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
