Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata v. Exide Industries Ltd

ITA/77/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA -Versus- EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. Appearance:Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 12[th] September, 2022. The Court: This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the common order dated 20[th]January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) for two assessment years namely,2003-04 and 2004-05 in ITA No.189/Kol/2007 and ITANo.1414/Kol/2007. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Whether the provision for royalty and technical feespayable by the assessee as a resident of Japan couldbe disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 in view of the Indo-Japan treaty foravoidance of double taxation ?” We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counselassisted by Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, learned Advocate forthe respondent. On hearing the submission of the learned counselappearing for the respondent, we are of the view that theseappeals cannot be pursued by the revenue for both theassessment years as the tax effect involved in both the appealsare below the threshold limit. Nothing has been brought onrecord by the revenue to show that the case would be coveredunder any of the exceptional clauses in the Circular issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).Therefore, the appeals stand dismissed on low taxeffect and the substantial question of law is left open. (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)