Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)Chennai v. M/S.prasad Production Ltd.,27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.896 of 2010 Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)Chennai. .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Prasad Production Ltd.,27-28, Arunachalam Road,Saligramam, Chennai 600 073. .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'C' Bench dated 09.04.2010 - ITA No.663/Mds/2003Assessment year 2002-2003. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income TaxAppeals dated 08.01.2003 in ITA.NO.83/2002-2003 against theorder of the Income Tax Officer(International Taxation)II,chennai for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 dated 17.09.2001. Senior Standing Counsel. I/T. For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subraya Aiyar Padmanaban This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench,dated 09.04.2010, in ITA No.663/Mds/2003 Assessment year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2002-2003, by raising the following substantial questionsof law : i) "Whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin holding that the payment of USD9,02,000 held by the Assessing Officeras fees for technical services was onlypart of the equipment price includingthe service for installation andtraining and the payment was outside thepurview of Tax Deduction at Source iIndia? 2) Whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin holding that if the remitter wasunder a bona fide belief that no part ofthe payment to the non-resident entitywas chargeable to tax; the remitted wasnot under any statutory obligation todeduct tax at source on any part of thepayment and also the remitter need notmake an application to the AssessingOfficer u/s.195 (2) of the Act? 3) Whether prejudice to the precedingquestion, whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that the assessee could haveentertained a bona fide relief that nopart of the payment made to the non-resident entity was chargeable to taxunder the Income Tax Act? 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedStanding Counsel for the Department brought to our noticethe Circular instruction issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019, dated 8[th]August,2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shallnot be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceedRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to beless than the monetary limit imposed and, therefore, theAppeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ keeping open the substantial questions of law fordetermination in appropriate cases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkd To THE REGISTRAR,INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XI, CHENNAI343.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)II, CHENNAI +1cc to M/S.SUBBRAUA AIYAR , Advocate SR.No. 76791 A.SK(15/10/2019) TCA No.896 of 2010