Tca/829/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.dishnet Wireless Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 7.8.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.Nos.829, 830, 834, 835 & 837 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ..Appellant M/s.Dishnet Wireless Limited,Specer Plaza, 5th Floor,769, Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002PAN: AAACD5767E ..Respondent Prayer:- Appeals filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated 20.07.2015 in ITANo.321, 320, 325, 326 and 328/Mds/2014, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai dated30.12.2013 pertaining to the Assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS Circle-I, Chennai-34, dated 27.03.2013, 2803.2013,28.03.2013, 28.03.2013 & 28.03.2013 pertaining to the assessmentyears 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012respectively vide TAN/PAN CHED 02195E/ . For respondent : Mr.Vishnu Mohan The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges attheir respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Courtappearing from their respective residences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, dated 20.07.2015 inITA No.321, 320, 325, 326 and 328/Mds/2014, for the AssessmentYears 2008-09, 2007-08, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11, byraising the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe proceeding under section 201(1) and 201(1A)cannot be sustained on the ground that the tax neednot be deducted at source u/s . 194J by the assesseewhile paying roaming charges to the telecomoperators since roaming charges paid by the assesseeis not a fee for technical services as no humanintervention is required for providing theconnection while roaming? (ii) Alternatively, whether the Tribunal havingheld that the human intervention is necessary formaintenance of the telecom system that providesroaming facility, is the Tribunal right inconcluding that such human intervention is notsufficient to treat the payment as fee for technicalservices mandating deduction of tax at source u/s194J?" 3. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated thatappeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before theHigh Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceedRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 4. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filedby the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Assistant Registrar //True Copy// To. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-I 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 TDS Circle-I 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.829, 830, 834,835 & 837 of 2016 nrl (co)rr ii (19/11/2020)