Bombay High Court
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-16versusLAMHAS SATELLITE SERVICES LIMITED
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the deduction must be made at the lesser rate of 2%, in line with its earlier decisions.
Summary
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-16) appealed against Lamhas Satellite Services Ltd. challenging a tribunal's order that allowed a deduction at a reduced rate of 2% instead of the standard 10%. The central question was whether the deduction should be made at 10% or the lower 2% rate. The Revenue argued that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in three earlier decisions, which favored the lower rate. The Court examined the record and found no remaining issue, affirming the earlier rulings that the deduction must be at the lesser rate. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of without further adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether the deduction under the applicable income‑tax provision should be made at the statutory rate of 10% or at the reduced rate of 2% as determined by the tribunal
Subjects
- income tax
- deduction rate
- appeal
- tribunal order
- precedent
Judgment
25 & 26-ITXA-20-19.DOC
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
URMILA by URMILA
PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2019
INGALE Date:
2026.09.30
15:37:02 +0530
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2019
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-16 …Appellant
Versus
Lamhas Satellite Services Limited …Respondent
Mr.P.A. Narayanan, for the Appellant.
Mr. B.V. Jhaveri a/w Ms.Bhargavi Raval, for the Respondent.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATED: 28th SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-
1. Mr. Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Revenue in both the Appeals submits that the core issue involved
in both these Appeals pertains to the question as to whether
deduction is to be made at the rate of 10% or at the lesser rate of
2% as has been held by the learned Tribunal.
2. By referring to the decisions of this Court in the cases of
(i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Media
Worldwide Ltd.1 ;
1 [2026] 185 taxmann.com 997
Page 1 of 2
25 & 26-ITXA-20-19.DOC
(ii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Morgan
Stanley India Capital Pvt. Ltd2 ; and
(iii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Vs. Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.3 ,
Mr. Narayanan submits that aforesaid question of law have already
been answered by this Court, in the aforementioned decisions,
against the Revenue by holding that deduction is required to be
made but at a lesser rate.
3. In view of above, Mr. Narayanan submits that the
substantial questions of law projected in these Appeals would
stand answered by the aforementioned decisions of this Court. The
said proposition has not been controverted by Mr. Jhaveri, learned
counsel for the Respondent in both the Appeals.
4. After going through the record, we are also of the view that
nothing further survives for adjudication in these Appeals in the
light of law laid down by this Court in the Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax Vs. Media Worldwide Ltd (supra), Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Morgan Stanley India Capital Pvt.
Ltd (supra) & in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Vs. Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (supra). The Appeals are, therefore,
disposed of.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
2 [2025] 177 taxmann.com 699
3 [2026] 187 taxmann. Com 703
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.