Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT

332 ITR 340High Court2011#213 most cited

What is Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT authority for?

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

359

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT · Asia Satellite · Section 9(1)(vi) · royalty income · use of equipment · satellite transponder charges · tax treaty · DTAA · withholding tax · Section 195 · fees for included services · use of process

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 2639 Taxmann.com 168

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 1961Section 90(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentsection 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)section 195(2)section 9(1)(vi)clarificatory amendmentfees for included serviceswithholding taxsection 90(2)royalty incomesection 9(1)tax treaty

Judgments citing Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain
Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 971

…Delhi The learned CIT(A), following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.),. and DIT vs. New Skies DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). d in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.)., as approved by , as approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5255/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD , MUMBAI

ITA 5254/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5253/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5252/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5251/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5250/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5247/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5246/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd. vs. PCIT, in ITA No.1487 of 2018, in which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT, reported in (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del.), and DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the payment made towards the use of the transponder facility is not in the nature of a Royalty and the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source while making payments towards transponder service charges to Intelsat UK.…

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2674/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “डी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री ब्रजेश कुमार स िंह, लेखाकार सिस्य के समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22) ITA Nos. 2353 & 2674/DEL/2023(A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22) Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Ltd., 15, DAI Kawai Street, TAI PO Industrial Estate, NT, Hong Kong, 999999 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AADCA-7848-N बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxatio…

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONGKONG vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2353/DEL/2023[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “डी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री ब्रजेश कुमार स िंह, लेखाकार सिस्य के समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22) ITA Nos. 2353 & 2674/DEL/2023(A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22) Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Ltd., 15, DAI Kawai Street, TAI PO Industrial Estate, NT, Hong Kong, 999999 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AADCA-7848-N बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxatio…

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,NETHERLANDS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTL. TAX. 2(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…soning and conclusion on facts similar to the facts in the present proceedings with ISRO which has been followed after a detailed discussion and in fact extracted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 340(Del.). We note that no arguments have been advanced by the Revenue to rebut the assessee‟s arguments that facts as considered in ISRO Satellite Centre are identical in the present proceedings also. We have taken into consideration that the learned CIT-DR has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras HighCourt in the case of Verizon I…

DCIT-5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ated that the Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014]\n361 ITR 575, had distinguished the case of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nAsia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340/197 Taxman\n263/9 taxmann.com 168 which again was relied upon by the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra). The ld. DR further contended that the expression\n'process' used in the definition of ‘royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act has been discussed\nat length in the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veri…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ated that the Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014]\n361 ITR 575, had distinguished the case of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nAsia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340/197 Taxman\n263/9 taxmann.com 168 which again was relied upon by the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra). The ld. DR further contended that the expression\n'process' used in the definition of ‘royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act has been discussed\nat length in the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veri…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ated that the Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014]\n361 ITR 575, had distinguished the case of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nAsia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340/197 Taxman\n263/9 taxmann.com 168 which again was relied upon by the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra). The ld. DR further contended that the expression\n'process' used in the definition of ‘royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act has been discussed\nat length in the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veri…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ated that the Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014]\n361 ITR 575, had distinguished the case of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nAsia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340/197 Taxman\n263/9 taxmann.com 168 which again was relied upon by the coordinate bench in the case\nof Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra). The ld. DR further contended that the expression\n'process' used in the definition of ‘royalty' u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act has been discussed\nat length in the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veri…

Showing 1–20 of 359 · Page 1 of 18

...
Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT (332 ITR 340) — Cited in 359 Judgments | BharatTax