Itxa/780/2010 Of The Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation v. M/S. Dun And Bradstreet Information Services India Private Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.780 OF 2010 The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Dun and Bradstreet Information Services India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Porus Kaka with A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 11TH JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITATA was justified in cancelling the order passed under Section 195 r/w. section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal. 2.The assessee had imported Business Information Reports from Dun & Bradstreet, USA and made remittances in respect thereof without deducting tax at source. The assessing officer held that the 2 itxa780-10 assessee was liable to deduct tax at source and accordingly passed an order under Section 195 read with Section 201 of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by CIT(A). On further appeal, the ITAT set aside the order passed under Section 195 read with Section 201 of the Act by following its decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2002-03 in ITA No.1773/Mum/2006 and the decision of the AAR on identical facts in the case of D & B Espana, Spain AAR No.615 of 2003 (272 ITR 99), D & B Europe AAR No.657 of 2005 dated 27/10/2005 and D & B UK AAR No.656 of 2005 dated 27/10/2005. In all these cases the AAR held that the sale of very same Business Information Reports by the subsidiaries of Dun & Bradstreet US in Spain, Europe and U.K. to the assessee did not attract the provisions of Section 195 of the Act. Though the decision of the AAR is not binding in the present case, since the decision of AAR relates to the very same Business Information Reports imported by the petitioner and no fault in the decision of the AAR is pointed out, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the ITAT. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.(A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)