Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Chennai v. M/S. Areva T&D India Ltdfssc Building19/1 Gst Roadpallavaramchennai-600 043

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 18.12.2018 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMand The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.237 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s. Areva T&D India LtdFSSC Building19/1 GST RoadPallavaramChennai-600 043 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 22.12.2010 in ITA No.1426/Mds/2010 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Benchfor the assessment year 2008-09, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, No.121,Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34 in AppealNo.CIT(A)-IV/CHE/68/09-10 PAN/GI No. Assessment year(s) 2008-09 and against the order of the Income Tax Officer(International Taxation)-II, VII Floor, Annexe Building, 121Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034 No.Misc/Areva/07-08dated 07/12/2007. For Respondent : Mr. M. P.Senthilkumar Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,JHeard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided the issue infavour of the assessee, by raising the following substantialquestions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe payment of Euros 1,78,591 to the foreigncompany as cost of repairs did not amount tofees for technical services ignoring the factthat the repair work involved highlytechnical skills and knowledge ?” ii. Without prejudice to the precedingquestion, whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in not holdingthat even the decision taken for replacingthe Steel Tanks involved technical knowledgeand hence the element of technical servicecould not be ignored ?” 3. The Revenue seeks to withdraw the appeal on account oflow tax effect in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 4. In the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn and the substantial questions of law raised are leftopen. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limitfixed in the said circular under exceptional clauses mentionedin the circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make amention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard anddecided on merits. 2)The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai 3)The ITO (International Taxation)II, Chennai 4)The Commissioner of Income Tax-Judicial, Chennai5)The Director of Income Tax,(International Taxation),Chennai6)The Income Tax Officer (H.Qtrs) (Ward) O/o.CCIT,chennai. +1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.88630 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/