The Director Of Income Tax (It) – Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.international Global Networks Bv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2011 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2461 OF 2011 The Director of Income Tax (IT) – II, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.International Global Networks BV ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divesh Chawala & Mr.Atul K Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 13[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In these appeals by the Revenue for assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03, the following common question of law have been proposed for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not a conduit of Star Limited and that income from sales revenue of advertisement belonged to assessee and to be assessed as income of the assessee ?” 2.The Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent – assessee by following its earlier orders rendered in the respondent – assessee's own case for assessment year 1998-99. The Revenue has accepted the order for assessment year 1998-99 as no appeal therefrom has been preferred by the Revenue. The Revenue has not made out any case warranting a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal in the respondent – assessee's case for the assessment year 1998-99. 3.The Tribunal on facts reiterated the finding rendered by it for the assessment year 1998-99 that the assessee company was formed not only for the purposes of procuring advertisement from India but also from other countries. Hence, there was no motive of tax benefits on the part of the respondent – assessee. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the independent existence of the respondent – assessee could not be denied. 4.In view of the above and particularly when the Revenue has accepted the order passed for assessment year 1998-99 in respect of the respondent – assessee, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)