DCIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ZOOMIN ONLINE INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this technical ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders deleting disallowances made under Section 40(a)(i) for payments made to foreign companies for server charges, web hosting, and online advertising. The tax effect in these appeals was below ₹50 Lakhs.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the appeals were maintainable given the low tax effect. The underlying substantive issue concerned the taxability of payments for server charges, web hosting, and online advertising as royalty or fees for technical services.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT12 citing93 Taxmann.com 183 · 2018
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON’BLE
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-14/IT- 10185/17-18, CIT(A)-14/IT-179B/16-17 and CIT(A)-14/IT-213B/16-17 dated 20.08.2018 for the A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively.
2 51 & 52/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Zoomin Online India Pvt. Ltd., 2. Revenue has raised the following common grounds in its appeals except for figures - “1. On the facts of the case and circumstances and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of Rs. 88,11,937/- holding that the server charges and web hosting charges paid by the assessee to Amazon Web Services and Softlayer Technologies were not in the nature of interest or royalties or fee for technical services or other sum chargeable to tax in India and the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 while making payments outside India.
On the facts of the case and circumstances and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of Rs.70,12,134/- without appreciating that the payment by the assessee to foreign companies on account of "online advertising" falls within the meaning of royalty as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as provisions of the DTAA between India and Ireland and USA as held by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Google India (P.) Ltd., [2018] 93 taxmann.com 183 (Bangalore - Trib.).
3. On the facts of the case and circumstances and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance on the basis of additional evidence filed before CIT(A) without calling the remand report from the Assessing Officer.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. DR fairly submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeals is below ₹.50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeals of the revenue are not maintainable.
We have heard the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the grounds of appeal in these appeals. We find that the tax effect in all these appeals is less than ₹.50 Lakhs and therefore the appeals of the Revenue are not 3 51 & 52/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Zoomin Online India Pvt. Ltd., maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.
In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on the 19th February, 2020
More judgments on Section 40(a)(i)
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
- DDIT(It)- 1(1), Mumbai vs M/S. American Express Bank Ltd., MumbaiITA 5667/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1116/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6198/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026