IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-2 ..Appellant vs. Hapag Lloyd AG, C/o Hapag Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for appellant. Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w. Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala i/b. PDS Legal for respondent. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 6 JANUARY 2020 P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for Appellant. 2. present Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 3. Learned counsel for Appellant has drawn our attention to order passed by this Court in Appeal in case of Respondent Assessee for earlier Assessment Year. 4. Tribunal in impugned order has referred to Appeal filed by Revenue in respect of Respondent 1/3 46. itxa 1362-17.doc Assessee Assessment Year 2007-08. observations are reproduced as under :- 4. Ostensibly, direction of DRP, which has been sought to be challenged by Revenue before us, are based on order of Tribunal dated 14/8/2013 (supra) in assessee s own case for assessment year 2007-08, which continues to subsist. As consequence, we find no reason to interfere in directions made by DRP. only plea of Revenue, as manifested in above stated Ground of appeal, is that appeal has been preferred in High Court against order of Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08. So however, mere filing of appeal does not distract from fact that order of Tribunal dated 14/08/2013 (supra) continues to hold field inasmuch as same has not been altered by any higher authority. As consequence, we find no merit in appeal of Revenue which is hereby dismissed. 5. Division Bench of this Court while considering Appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 in Income Tax Appeal No. 602 of 2014 has observed as under :- P.C :- This Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act), challenges order dated 14th August, 2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2 Revenue has urges only following question of law for our consideration: Whether on facts and in circumstance of case and in law, income of assessee by way of slot chartering would from part of income from 2/3 46. itxa 1362-17.doc operations of ships exempt under Article 8 of DTAA? 3 We find that impugned order of Tribunal has allowed Respondent's appeal by following decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v/s. Balaji Shipping UK Ltd., (2012) 211 Taxmann page 535. In above case, this Court was concerned with Article 9(1) of Indo-UK DTAA. In present case, Article 8 of Indo-German DTAA which is similar to Article 9(1) of Indo-UK DTAA, arises for consideration. Therefore, impugned order allowed Respondent-Assessee's appeal before it by following decision of this Court in Balaji Shipping UK Ltd., (supra). 4 Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Revenue very fairly states that issue stands concluded in favour of Respondent-Assessee by decision of this Court in Balaji Shipping UK (supra). 5 In view of above, question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. In view of submission made by learned counsel for Respondent that issue stands covered as above, Appeal is not entertained and accordingly dismissed. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) Diksha Rane Digitally signed by Diksha Rane Commissioner of Income-tax (IT)-2 v. Hapag Lloyd AG