Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dcit Ltu , Mumbai vs Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai on 18 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.5985/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007)
DCIT (LTU), फनाभ/ M/s. Tata Consultancy
World Trade Centre, Services Limited,
th
Vs.
Centre-1, 29 Floor, 9 t h Floor, Nirmal Building,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai -20.
स्थामी रेखा सं ./ PAN : AAACR4849R
(अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)
अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Bahadur, CIT-DR
प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Firoze B Andhyarujina
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 09.11.2016
घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18 .11.2016
आदे श / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue on 25.9.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-24, Mumbai dated 24.6.2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following ground which reads as under:-
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in excluding the subscription fees paid to Tata Sons Ltd from „fringe benefit‟ assessable u/s 115WB(2)(D) of the Act."
2. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to para 7 of the CIT (A)‟s order and submitted that the said fees was paid by the assessee to the Tata Sons Ltd for us of „brand‟. The said expenditure was brought in the scope of fringe benefit under the provisions of section 115WB(2)(D) of the Act and the similar issue was came up for adjudication in the AYs 2007-2008 where the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT (A) in the present case followed the said order of the Tribunal for the AYs 2007-2008. This view was actually upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court in the assessee‟s own case vide appeal ITA No.1131 of 2012, copy of which is placed at pages 1-12 of the paper book.
23. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of the modification orders issued by the AO for the AY 2006-07 and the other orders of the Tribunal for the AYs 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10, we are of the opinion, para 5.2 of the CIT (A)‟s order is relevant in this regard. Considering the significance of the said para and for the sake of completeness of this order, the same is extracted as under:-
"5.2........The Hon‟ble ITAT had passed an order for AY 2007-2008 (the relevant portion is reproduced above) deciding the issue in favour of the assessee as per the claim made by it. It is observed from the facts of the case available on record vis-a- vis the facts of the case for the AY 2007-2008, that they are similar and only the quantum of subscription of fee varies. Following the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT for the AY 2007-08, it is held that the subscription fees paid is not subject to FBT and therefore, the same is allowed............."
4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the CIT (A) has rightly adjudicated the issue and grated relief to the assessee following the binding orders of the Tribunal on identical issues. Therefore, in our view, the ground raised by the Revenue is actually frivolous and they should be dismissed as such. We order accordingly. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 18.11.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS
आदे श की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अऩीराथी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.
3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)-
4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT
5. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 3
6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file.
सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai