Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “E”,MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. These two appeals by Revenue under section 253 of the Income Tax Act(‘Act’) are directed against the common order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short ‘the CIT(A)] –14, Mumbai dated 13.03.2004 for Assessment Year (AYs) 2009-10 & 2010-11. As facts as well grounds of appeal in both the appeals are identical, impugned order is common, thus both were heard together and are decided by a consolidated order. For appreciation of facts, we are referring the facts of AY 2009-10.
2. Though the Revenue has raised a number of grounds but as per our considred opinion the only substantial ground is “Whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act on the basis that quantum addition has been deleted without appreciating the fact that further appeal has been filed to ITAT against the deletion of quantum addition”.
2 & 3915/M/2014 M/s. Singapore Airlines Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for assessee. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order u/s 201(1) on the basis of which, the order u/s201(1A) dated 08.06.2012 was passed, has already been set-aside by CIT(A) and the same has been confirmed by the ITAT Mumbai vide order dated 19.12.2016 in ITA Nos. 3148 & 3139/Mum/2014 for AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively, hence the appeal filed by Revenue will not survive . The ld. DR for the Revenue not disputed the facts.
We have considered the rival contention of the parties and seen that in ITA No. 3148 & 3139/Mum/2014 for AY 2009-10 & 2010-11, the Revenue challenged the order of CIT(A) dated 12.02.2014, wherein the order u/s 201(1) passed by AO was set- aside. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal passed the following order: “8. Ground No.2 relates to the short deduction of TDS on Passenger Service Fees (PSF). The Ld. AR of the assessee argued that this ground of appeal
is also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in assessee’s own case which was decided along with the case of Japan Airlines Company vs. CIT, reported viz 377 ITR 372 (SC). The Ld. DR for the Revenue not disputed about the factual and legal position.
9. We have gone through the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in Japan Airlines Co(supra) and seen that this ground of appeal is also squarely covered by this decision, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the charges paid by International Airlines to Airport Authority of India for landing and takeoff services as well as for parking of Aircraft, are not, in substance for use of land but for various other facilities extended by Airport Authority of India in connection of Airport operation and such charges are not covered u/s 194I of the Act. Thus this ground of appeal raised by the assessee has no force and the same is dismissed by following the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court.
10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.”
Considering the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal dated 19.12.2016, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in both the appeals have become infructuous. Thus, the same are dismissed.