Tax Case (Appeal) v. M/S.ajapa Integrated Project Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.2.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.627 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai.Appellant Vs. M/s.Ajapa Integrated Project Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,No.47, Velacherry Road,Little Mount, Saidapet,Chennai 600 015. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 22.6.2011 made in ITANo.2169/Mds/2010 A.Y.2007-08, ITA No.2169(MDS)/2010 againstthe order Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Chennai inITA No.527/09-10/A III dated of order 28/09/2010 in PAN for the assessment year 2007-08 against the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I(1), Chennai inP.A./G.I.R No.AAFCA5848L date of order 29/12/2009 for theassessment year 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar J U D G M E N T(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated22.6.2011 made in ITA No.2169/Mds/2010, for the AssessmentYear 2007-2008, by raising the following substantial questionsof law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) could be madein respect of the consultancy fees paid to non-residents in respect of the assessee's oilexploration contract, by holding that section 44BB(1) would apply and therefore the assessee wasright in deducting tax at the rate of 4%?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in giving thedecision mentioned in the preceding question evenafter holding that the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of GE India Technology CentrePvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) would not beapplicable in the assessee's case, instead ofholding that the assessee was not correct inunilaterally deciding to deduct tax at a lowerrate without obtaining a certificate from theAssessing Officer u/s.195(2) of the Act, applyingthe decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofTransmission Corporation A.P. Ltd. vs. CIT (239ITR 587)? " 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appealfiled by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping openthe substantial questions of law for determination inappropriate cases. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True copy// ssk. To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai. Chennai. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals III, Chennai. Appeals III, Chennai. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Chennai. Company Circle I(1), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.13442 +1cc to Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, Advocate SR.No.13994 T.C.(A) No.627 of 2011RJI(CO)GMY(17/06/2020)