Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the disallowance made under section 40(a)(i). The issue pertained to payments made for banner advertisements to a non-resident company.
Held
The Tribunal decided to follow the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case (ITA No. 3130/Mum/2019). The CIT(A) had also followed this precedent. The revenue's contention that the pending appeal before the High Court should prevent following the precedent was rejected.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of payments made to a non-resident for banner advertisements, treating it as business profit and not royalty, and whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS.
Sections Cited
40(a)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai, dt. 04/12/2023, pertaining to AY 2016-17. 2. The substantive grievance reads as under:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)i) by holding that the payment made for display of banner advertisement was not in the nature of royalty but the same was in the nature of business profit and in the absence of any PE of Facebook Ireland Ltd, in India? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) order can be said as perverse in nature for holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to non-residents by relying on the decision of Hon'ble TAT in assessee's own case, wherein the department did not accept the decision of ITAT and filed further appeal which is pending before Hon'ble High Court for adjudication? 2 (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is right in law allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there was no obligation on part of assessee to deduct TDS on payments made to non-resident companies without analyzing the facts and materials of the present case with provisions of respective DTAA's ?"
At the very outset, it has been brought to our notice that the impugned issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 3130/Mum/2019; AY 2015-16, order dt. 07/07/2022. A perusal of the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority shows that he has also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the ITA No. 3130/Mum/2019. In our understanding, merely because the revenue has not accepted the order of the Co-ordinate Bench and filed further appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, would not deprive us to follow the order of the Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, following the precedents and finding that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), we decline to interfere.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 15th July, 2024 at Mumbai. (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 15/07/2024 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs 3
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु" अपील
( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,