DCIT (IT) 3.1.2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KAUTILIYA BHAWAN vs. LINKLATERS AND PAINES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5119/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties. The Department's representative, with the concurrence of the assessee's representative, stated that the appeal had become infructuous due to the enhanced monetary limit for tax effect, which was not met by this appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the appellant/assessee against the order of the CIT(A). The department raised several grounds of appeal concerning the taxability of the assessee's income in India and its residency status. During arguments, the revenue representative submitted that the appeal had become infructuous due to an increase in the monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the department's appeal is infructuous due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, and whether the tax effect in this appeal falls below the threshold.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 9(1)(vil),Section 115A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Ld. DR
Pronounced: 26.12.2024

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 22.07.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section

2.

The department is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds of appeal:

Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that assessee can be treated as resident of United Kingdom within the meaning of DTAA between India and UK despite the fact that it is fiscally transparent entity in UK and hence not taxable in the UK? ii. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it is not having any permanent establishment in term of Article 5(2)(k)(i), without considering that the receipts of the assessee is fees for technical services as per meaning of section 9(1)(vil). Explanation 2 and therefore is taxable on gross basis under section 115A of the Income Tax Act. iii. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CII(A) is justified in holding that receipts from consultancy services does not fall in the category of fee for technical services under India-UK DTAA, without considering that the provision of DTAA between India and UK are not available to the assessee as it is not a 'person' as per Article 3(1)(f) of the DTAA and is not a resident of any of the two contracting States within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the DTAA and was not Hable to taxation in the UK iv. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the income from services earned by the Linklaters and Paines assessee is not taxable due to absence of PE despite the provision of Explanation to section 9.

3.

During the arguments, the Ld. DR very fairly submitted that the department appeal has become infructuous by virtue of circular no. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, wherein the monetary limit for tax effect for filing appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been raised upto Rs. 60 lacs. It is submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is below 60 lacs and as such the appeal has become infructuous and same may be disposed off accordingly.

4.

We have also heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, who has supported the submissions of the Ld. DR, and stated that since the appeal is not maintainable and has become infructuous.

5.

We have considered the submissions and examined the record. In view of the enhancement of the monetary limit for filing the departmental appeal wherein the tax effect for filing the appeal should be Rs. 60 Lacs or above and the tax effect in this appeal are below. In view of these facts and the submissions made by the Ld. DR, the appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.12.2024

More judgments on Section 115A

All 417 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →