Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax-10 v. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd

1 / 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1488 OF 2018 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1584 OF 2018 Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-10 .... Appellant versus NEO Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.... Respondent ….... Mr.Akhileshkumar Sharma, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Akhileshkumar Sharma, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Rahul Hakani, Advocate for Respondent.Mr.Rahul Hakani, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 23[rd] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. These Appeals are filed by the revenue to challenge the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following common question is presented for our consideration; “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting theaddition towards Satellite Space Fees/transponder 2 / 2 charges relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi HighCourt in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication238 CTR (Del) 233, without considering the amendmentin section 9(1)(vi) w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 [by Finance Act,2012] wherein the intent of legislature in respect of'royalty' has been clarified thereby deeming the saidcharges to be 'royalty' in nature?” 2. This question is similar to which we have dealt with in a detailed discussion in Income Tax Appeal No.1487/18involving this very assessee. Without recording separate reasons,such question is therefore not considered. 3. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)