Itxa/375/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-I v. M/S.jet Lite (India)Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)-1 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, J.J. DATED : 19[th] JULY, 2017 P.C. 1.The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011- 12. 2.The Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law :- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that payments made to Airport Authority of India by the assessee for Passenger Service Fees (PSF) are not covered by Section (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Cargo handling charges are in the nature of contract u/s 194C of the Act and not “fees for Professional or Technical Services” covered u/s 194J of the I.T. Act, 1961 as cargo handling requires technically competent and skilled persons to handle highly complicated and mechanized mechinery? (3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is erred in not appreciating that interest u/s 201(1A) is a statutory liability of the deductor-assessee? 3.So far as question no.1 framed in the matter with regard to payments made to Air Port Authority of India by the assessee for the passenger service fees is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1181 of 2014, dated 4[th] January, 2017. 4.So far as question no.2 is concerned, for the earlier Assessment Year i.e. for A.Y. 2008-09, the Commissioner held in favour of the assessee. The said judgment is accepted by the Revenue and no appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The same was accepted for the subsequent year. The Revenue cannot deviate. 5.So far as question no.3 is concerned, the same is dependent on question no.2, which is answered against the Revenue. 6.In the light of the above, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)