ASST CIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. ALLIED MEDIA NETWORK P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3874/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2016AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowance of TDS and consequential interest. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable considering the tax effect below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii),Section 194J,Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Morya Pratap
For Respondent: Shri. Pankaj Jain
Hearing: 02/06/2016Pronounced: 02/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 05/03/2014 passed by the Ld CIT(A)-14, Mumbai for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds of appeal:-

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the services provided by Search Light Movies is far beyond the mere supply of labour and the very nature of services rendered suggest that they are technical, as envisaged in the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and ought to be subjected to TDS u/s 194J of the Act.

(ii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961, as interest deletion is consequential to the quantum deletion for which further appeal has been recommended vide ground No.1.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below 10,00,000/- Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below 10 Lakhs, We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →