TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 2007-08 (subject matter of challenge in WP (C) No. 4261/2015) and AY 2008-2009 (subject-matter of challenge in WP (C) No. 4260/2015). Both the Assessment Orders were accompanied by the Demand Notices which have also been challenged in these writ petitions. 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc. It is engaged in the business of sub-distribution of distribution rights and sale of advertisement inventory on satellite delivered channels. 3. For the AY 2007-08, it filed its returns on 31st October 2007, declaring its income at Rs. 10,69,43,491/-. This was later revised on 31st March, 2009 to claim a higher TDS. As far as AY 2008-09 is concerned, the Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the TPO on 30th January, 2015 proposing an upward adjustment to the total income of the Petitioner for each of the AYs. 9. Pursuant to the above order, the AO on 31st March, 2015 passed final Assessment Orders in respect of both AYs under Sections 254/143(3)/144 C (13) read with Section 92 CA (4) of the Act confirming the additions as proposed by the TPO. Accompanying the aforementioned final Assessment Orders were notices of demand under Section 156 of the Act and notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings. 10. The short ground on which the aforementioned final assessment orders and the consequent demand notices have been challenged is that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provision contain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel (supra) quashed the final order of the AO and the demand notice. Interestingly, even as regards the corrigendum issued, the Madras High Court held that it was beyond the time permissible for issuance of such corrigendum and, therefore, it could not be sustained in law. 14. Recently, this Court in ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of Indi [2016] 388 ITR 383 (Del.), following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai (supra) as well as the Bombay High Court in International Air Transport Association v. DCIT (2016) 290 CTR (Bom) 46, came to the same con....