ADIT (IT)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. ASIA T.V. (UK), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4345/MUM/2009Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 March 2016AY 2005-064 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. This was based on the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000, and the tax effect in this case being below that limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2005-06. The assessee also filed a cross-objection. The appeal was related to the existence of a permanent establishment and taxability of advertisement income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee has a permanent establishment in India and if advertisement income is taxable in India, considering the monetary limits for departmental appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 5, Article 7

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “L” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA

Hearing: 01.03.2016Pronounced: 01.03.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

I.TA No. 4345/Mum/2009
C.O. No. 40/Mum/2010

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

1.

The appeal is filed by the Revenue and the Cross objection is filed by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Ld.

2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee does not have a permanent establishment within the meaning of Article 5 of the DTAA.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the income from advertisement is not taxable as pe2r Article 7 of the DTAA.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of RTs. 16,04,709/- made by the Assessing Officer”.

3. Before going into the merits of the case, we consider CBDT’s latest instructions vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the relevant portion of which read as under:-

“ Circular No. 21/2015 F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board Direct Taxes New Delhi the 10th December, 2015

Subject: Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court - measures for reducing litigation - Reg –

Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 wherein monetary limits and other conditions

2.

In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below.

3.

Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: -

S. Appeals in Income-tax Monetary Limit No matters (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2. Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

4.

It is further clarified by the Board in its circular that these instructions will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts and Tribunals. It is also made clear that pending appeals below the monitory limits fixed in para-3 above may be withdrawn or not pressed.

5.

In the case in hand, the total demand as per CIT(A)’s order is less than the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is below the monetary limits as mentioned in CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 (supra). Following the same, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st March, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →