TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MITTAL (JM) J. SUDHAKAR REDDY (AM) For the Appellant: Shri A.V. Sonde. For the Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar. O R D E R PER BENCH : These cross appeals are filed against separate but identical orders of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai, dated 10-03-2008 for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. As the issues arising in all these appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The facts are brought at paras 2 to 2.2 of the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2002-03. They are extracted hereunder for ready reference : 2. The appellant is a company incorporated in Mauritius. It was engaged in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17,75,79,600 4,43,94,900 3,55,15,920 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the first appellate authority granted part relief. Being aggrieved, both the parties are in appeal before us. 4. Shri A.V. Sonde represented the assessee and Shri Mahesh Kumar represented the Revenue. Both parties submitted that the issues that arise in these appeals would be the same as the issues that arise in ITA No.880/Mum/2005 for asstt. year 2001-02, ITA No.3326/Mum/2006 for asst. year 2002-03, ITA No.7190/Mum/2008 for asstt. year 2005-06, ITA Nos.3866 4098/Mum/2008 for asst. year 2003-04 and ITA Nos.3832 3843/Mum/2008 for asstt. year 2004-05. It was submitted by both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and allow this ground. 12. Ground no. 5 is on the issue of liability to deduct tax from payments made to Advanced Satellite International Ltd. In ITA No.3326/Mum/2006 for asstt. year 2002-03 and other cases, while disposing of ground no. 4, we have held that the assessee has no liability to deduct tax on payments made to Advanced Satellite and Advanced Broadcast. Consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the contention of the assessee. 13. Ground no. 6 is on the issue of deduction of tax in respect of payments made to LMB Holdings (Mauritius). Consistent with the view taken while disposing of ground no. 5 in ITA No.3326/Mum/2006 for asst. year 2002-03, we decide this issue in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 2001-02. Consistent with the view taken therein, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 24. Ground nos. 5, 6 and 7 are also identical to ground nos. 5, 6 and 7 of ITA No. 3829/Mum/2008 for asstt. year 2001-02. Consistent with the view taken therein, we decide all these grounds in favour of the assessee. 25. Ground no. 8 is consequential in nature. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 27. ITA No.4096/Mum/2008 is a departmental appeal for assessment year 2002-03. 28. The only issue in appeal is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA No.4095/Mum/2008. Consistent with the view taken therein, we dismiss this ground of Revenue. 29. In the result, the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
