IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.5393/Del/2011
Assessment Year : 2008-09
M/s Intelsat Corporation,
C/o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd.,
Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1st Floor,
11A,Vishnu Digambar Marg,
PAN: AADCP6533D.
(Appellant)
Vs.
Assistant Director of Income Tax,
Circle-1(2),
International Taxation,
(Respondent)
Appellant by:Shri Pawan Kumar and Shri Arvind Rajan, ARs.
Respondent by:Application for adjournment by CIT-DR.
ORDER
PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP :
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1,
2. The learned CIT-DR, vide application dated
3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 and also of Hon’ble High Court for AY 2007-08. In support of his submission, he has filed copies of the orders of the Tribunal in ITA No.4662/Del/2011 for AY 2006-07 and in ITA No.5443/Del/2010 for AY 2007-08 and of Hon’ble High Court for AY 2007-08 in the form of a paper book.
4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and perused the material placed before us. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 and also the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for AY 2007-08, we have rejected the application of the learned CIT-DR requesting for adjournment and proceeded to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte qua the Department.
5. We find that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the aforementioned decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated
“4. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We have already mentioned that there is a distinguishable feature namely that the assessee has received payments from persons residents in
6. The above order of the Tribunal dated
“Learned Counsel for the Revenue could not dispute the position that issues raised in this appeal are directly covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA 131/2003 decided on 31.01.2011). In that judgment, a categorical view is taken that the income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be eligible to tax in
7. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the decisions of the Tribunal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 cited supra, we reverse the directions under Section 144C(5) of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel and allow the appeal of the assessee.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.D.JAIN) (G.D.AGRAWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated:02.02.2012
VK.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
Assistant Registrar