PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. M/S. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICE

TCA.No.92 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.2.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.92 of 2021

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs M/s.Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd., Coimbatore-18 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.1029/Mds/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC Judgment was delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.92 of 2021 dated 23.11.2017 made in I.T.A.No.1029/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the roaming/ interconnect charges are not liable to TDS under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Apex Court held that no human intervention is required for connecting the roaming when the Apex Court had given no such decision in case of M/s.Bharti Cellular Ltd.? And 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that no human intervention is required for roaming calls except at the time of physical connectivity and initial configuration when no such conclusive opinion was given by the technical expert?” 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.92 of 2021 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law raised are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. 01.2.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. RS 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.92 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS TCA.No.92 of 2021 01.2.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/