THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. vs. AJIT PHATARPEKAR.

PDF · subscribers
TXA/56/2016HC BombayHCBM05003809201528 March 2018Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. M. JAMDAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the reasoning that the issue involved in the present appeal was already concluded by a judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., dated 5th February, 2016. The Court noted that the Tax Appeal Nos. 27 and 55 of 2016, dismissed on 24 July 2017, were covered by this earlier decision. The High Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issues were no longer res integra. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa, filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji (Revenue), challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Respondent is Mr. Ajit Phatarpekar (assessee). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 28 March 2018, following a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court on 24 July 2017, which had dismissed other appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 27 and 55 of 2016) involving similar issues. The judgment notes that ITA No. 66 of 2014, mentioned in the 24 July 2017 order, was part of the proceedings before the ITAT from which the present appeal arose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, thereby upholding the assessee's position regarding taxability. This issue turns on the interpretation of provisions related to tax deduction at source. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was incorrect. The assessee, through their counsel, relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr., 327 ITR 456, and a decision of the ITAT's Coordinate Bench in Sesa Goa reported in ITA No.72/PNJ/2012 dated 8th March, 2013. These authorities established that tax is deductible only if the amounts payable result in income chargeable to tax in India. The Revenue did not present any arguments in the High Court's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 195

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Amrut 1 TXA56-16 dt 28-03-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.56 OF 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji.

… Appellant. Versus Mr. Ajit Phatarpekar … Respondent.

Ms. Amira Razaq, Junior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 28 March 2018. P.C. :

The learned counsel for the Respondent has placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24 July 2017 in Tax Appeal Nos.27 and 55 of 2016. 2. We have perused the order dated 24 July 2017. The Tax Appeal Nos.27 and 55 of 216 were dismissed as having been covered by the earlier decision observing thus:

Amrut 2 TXA56-16 dt 28-03-2018 “2. The challenge in the above appeals is to the Order dated 18/06/2015 passed in ITA No.19/PNJ/2014 and the Order dated 14/07/2015

passed

in ITA No.66/PNJ/2014, both for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the appeals preferred by the appellant-Revenue came to be Goa reported in ITA No.72/PNJ/2012 Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., dated 5th February, 2016. 4. In view of the above, we find that no Amrut 3 TXA56-16 dt 28-03-2018 substantial question of law arises in the present appeal for consideration, as the issues involved are no longer res integra”

3.

We note that the Appeal No.66 of 2014 which is referred to in the above mentioned paragraph was part of the group before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal along with the proceedings from which the present appeal arises. In these circumstances, since the issue having been covered in the order dated 24 July 2017, the appeal is dismissed.

Prithviraj K. Chavan , J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

More judgments on Section 195

All 2,836 judgments and leading authorities on Section 195 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →