TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-09 -do- -do- -do- -do- 4. ITA 303/Bang/2016 2011-12 -do- -do- -do- -do- 5. ITA 742/Bang/2017 2012-13 -do- ACIT Circle-2(1)(2) Bangalore 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) 25.01.17 6. ITA 341/Bang/2018 2013-14 -do- -do- -do- 29.11.17 7. ITA 3127/Bang/2018 2014-15 -do- -do- -do- 24.09.18 8. ITA 158/Bang/2020 2009-10 -do- PCIT, Bangalore-2, Bangalore 263 06.12.19 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Satellite Multimedia Services for end users. In these assessment years, the assessee has challenged both the Transfer Pricing adjustments and addition towards corporate tax except in ITA No.158/Bang/2020. 3. ITA No.158/Bang/2020 for the AY 2009-10 is emanated from the order of ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "The Act"), wherein assessee challenged the invoking of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also challenged the invoking of provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of share premium received by the assessee. 3.1 At the time of hearing, both the parties herein fairly conceded that these orders are pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot preceded by any invitation to the public for any Expression of Interest, culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.07.2003. Though it is not clear where the MoU was signed, there are indications that it was signed overseas; ii. It must be noted here that a one man Committee comprising of Dr. B.N. Suresh, former Member of the Space Commission and Director of Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, was constituted on 8.12.2009, long after the commencement of the commercial relationship, to look comprehensively into all aspects of the contract, both commercial and technical. According to the Report submitted by him in May-2010, it was Forge Advisors, USA which made a presentation in March-2003, on technology aspects of digital multimedia services to Antrix/ISRO, followed by a presentation in May-2003 purportedly to the top management of Antrix/ ISRO. The MoU was signed thereafter; iii. But the documents filed by the appellants themselves show that a power point presentation was made by Forge LLC on 22.03.2004, proposing an Indian joint venture to launch what came to be known as DEVAS (which perhaps ultimately turned out to be ASURAS^23). It wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entered into on 28.01.2005 but this so-called new national service was never launched as promised in 2006. The launch of the services was not linked to the provision of a S-band satellite by Antrix, at least at the time when negotiations took place; v. Admittedly, FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) approvals taken by Devas during the period May-2006 to September-2009 were on the basis of the ISP (Internet Service Provider) license secured from the Department of Telecommunications on 02.05.2008 and IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) services license obtained on 31.03.2009; vi. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal, (a) that a public largesse was doled out in favour of Devas, in contravention of the public policy in India; (b) that Devas enticed Antrix/ISRO to enter into an MoU followed by an Agreement by promising to provide something that was not in existence at that time and which did not come into existence even later; (c) that the licenses and approvals were for completely different services; and (d) that the services offered were not within the scope of SATCOM Policy etc. are actually borne out by records; vii. There is no denial of the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....audulent manner, also stood established. xi. SATCOM Policy perceived telecommunication and broadcasting services to be independent of each other and also mutually exclusive. Therefore, a combination of both was not permitted by law. It is especially so since no deliberation took place with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Moreover, unless ICC allocates space segment, to a private player, the same becomes unlawful. This is why the conduct of the affairs of the company became unlawful; xii. That the officials of the Department of Space and Antrix were in collusion and that it was a case of fence eating the crop (and also allowing others to eat the crop), by joining hands with third parties, is borne out by the fact that the Note of the 104th Space Commission did not contain a reference to the Agreement. The Cabinet Note dated 17.11.2005 prepared after ten months of signing of the Agreement, did not make a mention about Devas or the Agreement, but proceeded on the basis as though ISRO received several Expressions of Interest. These materials show the complicity of the officials to allow Devas to have unjust enrichment; xiii. It is on record that....