Cit v. Esel Shyam Communication Ltd

order as to costs. -,+L nnav lf ,2012 NA l'l'ANo.l30/201 I s in the case of LibertY tion of law in ITA No. order of remand to the irected that the tribunal nt case including the sessee, to decrde the examine and consider nd supported bY facts, tributed to earning of Act. d of. There will be no --'/C-lr I ,/l (. ^ (\ SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE f. Wl;"---''. tn.v. lnswAR) JUDGE Paltc 23 ot'23 (zt

? + % tN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS 27912011 & 28412011 Reserved on : Date of Decision : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .... Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. VERSUS ESSEL SHYAM COMMUNICATION LTD. ...Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONI'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIVKFIANNA. J.: For detailed order see ITA 13012011 titled Esse/ Shyam Communication Ltd, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax pronounced today. # I' :t' 'l .4 rr a -'l( -. (sl\NJrv KHANNA) JUDGE hl v_v.l q. (R.V.EASWAR) JUDGE .i @: May 17th,2012 NA 17tn Mav. 2012. IhI THE HIGH COURT OF DEL I AT NEW DEI_HI q' INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1 2011 Reserved : 15th March, 2012. Date of ision tte UAV-ZO1Z L.SSEL SHYAM COMMUNICATION LTD' Through Mr. AjaY Voh Somnath Sh VERSUS i;OMfulISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through Mr. N.P. Counsel' COIV|MTSSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through Mr. N.P- Counsei. VERSUS ISSEL SHYAM CO\4MUNICATION LTD ... APPellant a, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. kla, Advocates. .....ResPondent ahni, Sr. Standing Appellant Standing ... ResPondent ra, Ms. Kavita .Jha, Mr. TNCOME TAX APPEAL NOS 7912011 & 2B4t?-fi11 \ Through Mr. AjaY V Somnath Sh la, Advocates #ORAM: HCN'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHAN ,'ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR sAhIJ iAhlJlvKHANNA. J. ITA 13012011 Preferred bY Essel I td. and ITA Nos.2B4l2O11 and 27'Al hyam Communication 011 preferred bY the :-revenue arise out of the common order ated 31"March ,2010, :assed by the Income Tax APPellate : i Al\o. 130/201 1 . ribunal (for short, the l'agc I of'2J ii'rbunal). The appeals perlain to the as ent year 2005-06" V/e may note that the Revenue has pre rred two appeals as ue and one by the there were cross aPPeals bY the R assessee before the tribunal against e order of the first IL appellate authority. By order dated 12th July, 2011, ciuestions of law were framed in the i r-A 13012011 "1. Whether on the facts circumstances of the case, the in law in holding that income appellant from develoPment upgrades for Network Manage t@ "Whether learned ITAT l'i-ANo.1 30/20 I I following substantial nd in the ribunal erred rned by the of software ent Systems CTVICCS, WAS Section B0- Pagc 2 ol'23 for smooth and trouble free ing of VSAT service provided by the aPPella business of telecommunication not eligible for deduction unde lA(4(ii) of the lncome Tax Act? as part of 2. Whether on the facts circumstances of the case, the nd in the ribunal erred ln law in not directing exclusi of only net rest income interest income, i.e., gross in less expenditure incurred for rning such interest income, while comPU g deduction under Section B0-lA of the I e Tax Act?" holding that INSAT 2E is a dom within the meaning of sub-c in law in tic satellite se (ii) of Clause @) of Section B0-lA of the Income tf Tax Act, 1961, desPite the fac that British Telecom has leased it to the ass 2" tTA No,,284/2011 "Whetller learned ITAT e in law in holding that income of Rs.50, 2.7641- from trading activities is derived lndustrial undertaking within the meaning f Section B0- Tax Act, IA of the 1961?" lncome The assessee is a Public limit providing satellite based telecommuni VSAT services, up-linking servlces, ay out services and i.,,roadband service through satellite. lt h rhe said services, besides rental income itources. In the return of income filed o had claimed deduction under Section Act, 1961 (Act, for short) of Rs.4,BB, adjustment, had declared total 5,45,89,013/-. The total taxable it was Rs.6,90,32,5331-. company and was n solutions including earned income from nd income from other 28th October, 2005, it lA of the lncome Tax 9,0'13/- and after the ble income of Rs. under Section 115J8 4. As section B0lA is required be interpreted and 'examined, we deem it appropriate to roduce the relevant portion of the said provision, as it exis year period in question:- during the assessment I'l'ANo. l30l20ll Pagc 3 ol'23 '80-lA Deducti