WARNER BROS. INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONA TAXATION )-4(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 848/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2023AY 2014-20155 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted relief by holding that the assessee was covered by the India-USA DTAA, limiting the tax on royalty income to 15% inclusive of surcharge and cess. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass an order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a US-based company, was assessed for AY 2014-15 after its case was reopened for non-filing of return and non-offering of certain receipts to tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the returned income but levied tax at a higher rate including surcharge and cess.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order due to amended Section 144C. The primary issue revolved around the correct application of tax rates, surcharge, and cess as per the India-USA DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144C,Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 115A(5),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Shri Anil Sant
Pronounced: 27.10.2023

per Article 2(1)(v)(i) of the treaty. The ld. CIT(A) further held that as per Article 2(1)(b)(i), the income tax shall include surcharge and no further levy of surcharge @ 5% and education @ 3% was to be levied. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the co- ordinate bench in the case of DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. vs. ADIT [2012] 22 taxmann.com [2014] 41 taxmann.com 193 (Mum). It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee with regard to the interest and the penalty proceedings also.

8.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the ground that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the final assessment order as per the amended provision of section 144C of the Act.

9.

The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee was not entitled to surcharge and cess as per the India-USA DTAA. The ld. AR further contended that the ld. A.O. has not passed the order giving effect to the ld. CIT(A)’s order and that there will be no grievances of the assessee if the ld. A.O. passes the said order.

10.

The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), had nothing to controvert the said fact.

11.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Though the assessee has raised a legal ground, challenging the validity of the final assessment order, the ld. AR stated that the ld. CIT(A) has already given relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee was not entitled to further surcharge and cess which was inclusive of 15% tax levied on the royalty income. It is observed that the ld. A.O. inspite of the ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 23.01.2023 has not yet passed the order giving effect of the ld. CIT(A). If the same has been passed by the ld. A.O. there would be no scope for further adjudication as the assessee would get its relief and since the Revenue

1.

4 & 849/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. vs. Asst. CIT (IT) has not appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the same has reached finality. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to pass the order giving effect of the ld. CIT(A), if the same is not given so far.

12.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

13.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are as follows:

Ground Ground of appeal

Tax effect no. (INR) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. A.O. has well as the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the failure to file the 1 return of income was due to a bona fide belief and plausible understanding of law that the Appellant was not required to file return as the entire tax liability was discharged through TDS. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. A.O. has grossly misunderstood the provisions of law in stating that “as the assessee has not filed its return of income which was required to be filed as 2 per section 139(1) and 115A(5) of the Act thus the assessee ahs concealed its particulars of income as per the section 271(1)(c)”. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 10,98,10,108 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable as there is no amount of tax sought to be evaded.

3. The entire tax payable on assessed income is paid by way of tax deducted at source. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. A.O. as 4 well s the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no concealed income. Assuming though not accepting that penalty is leviable, the ld. CIT(A) 5 failed to cosndier that the tax sought to be evaded is calculated at the rate of 16.2225% whereas the applicable rate is 15%. Total Tax Effect = Rs.10,98,10,108

14. The assessee has raised various grounds in this appeal and that would become academic when the ld. A.O. passes the order giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A). we, therefore, direct the ld. A.O. to pass the order giving effect to the ld. CIT(A)’s order.

15.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2023.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →