TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.06.2007 vide Finance Act, 2007. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the amendment carried out is clarificatory in nature and is applicable even in respect of assessment years prior to insertion of the said proviso. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi has erred in law by reversing the order of Ld.CIT (A) and Assessing Officer, ignoring the fact that third provision of section 164H of the Income Tax Act has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and not from the retrospective effect." ii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r brokerage payable by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited or Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited to their public call office franchisees." The Tribunal granted the benefit of such amendment to the assessee holding the same to be clarificatory in nature. Such order of the Tribunal is based upon the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench in ITA No.71 to 77/PN/2009 for the assessment year 2002-2003 and 2008-09 in respect of the assessee herein. Considering the circular dated 12.03.2008 and the instructions dated 08.05.2009, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings: "7. While the aforesaid amendment was stated to be prospective i.e. with effect from 1st June, 2007, it cannot be inferred that so far as prior period is concerned, the stand t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or MTNL has deducted the taxes, but not paid over the same to the treasury, demands are not to be enforced till the matter is sorted out by the Board.When such is the stand taken by the CBDT itself, it cannot be said that in view of the insertion of proviso to Section 194 H with effect from 1st June, 22007. It is beyond doubt or controversy that so far as the period prior to this amendment is concerned, the tax deduction at source requirements under Section 194 H applied on payments of commission to PCO franchisees. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not, therefore, have any good reasons to disregard the binding judicial precedent. It cannot be open to a subordinate or coordinate judicialforum to disregard the decision of this Tribunal, in....