The Principal Commissioner Of vs M/S.Vodafone Mobile Service
2021 Latest Caselaw 2130 Mad

                                                                                  TCA.No.92 of 2021


                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 01.2.2021

                                                           CORAM

                                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

                                                             and

                                         THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                Tax Case Appeal No.92 of 2021


                     The Principal Commissioner of
                     Income Tax, TDS Circle, Coimbatore                           ...Appellant

                                                             Vs
                     M/s.Vodafone Mobile Service
                     Ltd., Coimbatore-18                                          ...Respondent

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against

the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.1029/Mds/2017 for the

assessment year 2012-13.

For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC

Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.92 of 2021

dated 23.11.2017 made in I.T.A.No.1029/Mds/2017 on the file of the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for

brevity) for the assessment year 2012-13.

2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following

substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the roaming/ interconnect charges are not liable to TDS under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Apex Court held that no human intervention is required for connecting the roaming when the Apex Court had given no such decision in case of M/s.Bharti Cellular Ltd.? And

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that no human intervention is required for roaming calls except at the time of physical connectivity and initial configuration when no such conclusive opinion was given by the technical expert?”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.92 of 2021

3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that

the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low

tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by

the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary

limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been

increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in

this case is less than the threshold limit.

5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal

is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions

of law raised are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the

threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the

Revenue to file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be

heard and decided on merits.

01.2.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai.

RS

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.92 of 2021

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J

RS

TCA.No.92 of 2021

01.2.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/