TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial available on record. 3. Since the appeals pertain to the same assessee involving similar issues, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. ITA no.3145/Mum./2022 Revenue's Appeal - A.Y. 2016-17 4. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- "1. Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ld.CIT (Appeal) is correct to hold that license fee paid to M/s. Celltick Technologies Limited of Rs. 26,51,98,008/- is not taxable in India? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) is correct to hold that no tax is deductible on the remittance of Rs. 26,51,98,008/- M/s. Celltick Technologies Limited? 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the ACIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may necessary. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw the aforesaid grounds of appeal." 5. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered the submissions of the learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in Celltick Mobile (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, in ITA No. 1673/Mum./2020, vide order dated 26/03/2021, for the assessment year 2014-15 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted similar addition made in the hands of the assessee for non-deduction of TDS while making the licence fees payment to Celltick Israel. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, in the aforesaid decision, are as under:- "14. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice that assessee is incorporated in India under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of distributing live screen/flash services on mobiles through telecom operators. The principal activity of the assessee is to provide mobile home screen marketing services to telecom operators and other services that enable an interactive communication channel with consumers on their mobile devices. We notice that during this assessment year, assessee made payments to Celltick Israel towards license fees of 16,31,65,734 pursuant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a chartered accountant, return of income and computation of income under section 139. Further we also noticed that the income of the payee is not chargeable to tax in India as per the decision of the coordinate bench. Even though as submitted by learned DR that the matter of payee is pending before High Court. In our view, as far as the current position available on record that the income of the payee is not chargeable to tax in India. Considering the facts on record and additional ground raised by the assessee. The question raised before us that whether the amendments made in Section 40(a)(i) is applicable retrospective or not. It is clear that the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i) are evenly worded and Pari materia to each other. Both the provisions were introduced by the legislature in order to remove the anomaly and curative in nature. In the case of section 40(a)(ia) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (supra) have already held that these provisions are applicable retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2005. Since the amendm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal in assessee's own case cited supra, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). As a result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA no.3146/Mum./2022 Revenue's Appeal - A.Y. 2017-18 11. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- "1. Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Id.CIT (Appeal) is correct to hold that license fee paid to M/s. Celltick Technologies Limited of Rs. 39,70,40,519/- is not taxable in India? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) is correct to hold that no tax is deductible on the remittance of Rs. 39,70,40,519/- M/s. Celltick Technologies Limited? 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the ACIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may necessary. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw the aforesaid grounds of appeal." 12. The issue arising in the present appeal is pertaining to the deletion of ....