The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Cleartrip Travel Pvt. Ltd

DDRIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6..Appellant vs.Cleartrip Travel Pvt. Ltd...Respondent …........ Mr. A.R. Mlahotra a/w. Mr. N.A. Kazi for the appellant.Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent. …........ CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 13 JANUARY 2020 P.C.:- This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 15 November 2016passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). Theimpugned order dated 15 November 2016 is in respect ofAssessment Year 2009-10. 2.Revenue urges the following questions of law, for ourconsideration : “(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has erredin holding that the assessee was not liable fordeduction of tax at source on the payments for creditcard services ? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has failedto appreciate the fact that the NotificationNo.56/2012(F. No. 275/53/2012-IT (B) dated 31December 2012 was applicable from 1 January 2013,which implied that prior to the said Notification,payment to Banks for amount received through creditcards was in the nature of commission, which shouldhave been subject to TDS under Section 194H. Sinceassessee has failed to deduct the TDS, the amountcomes within the ambit of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194H ?” 3.It is an agreed position between the parties that theissue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and infavour of the Respondent – Assessee by the decision of this Courtin Respondent – Assessee’s own case being CIT V/s. M/s.Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2017) decidedon 25 March 2019 and in Principal Commissioner of Income Taxv/s. M/s. Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal Nos.847and 954 of 2016) decided on 18 December 2018. 4.In the above view, the questions as proposed do notgive rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5.Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)