2023 (11) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs which are under challenge in the present appeals. 2. Heard Ms. K. Mamata, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanchith Jolly, learned counsel for the respondent (appearing virtually). 3. For sake of convenience, the facts in I.T.T.A. No. 11 of 2021 are discussed herein under. 4. The instant appeal is filed by the Revenue questioning the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A. Nos. 166, 167, 168, 169 and 170/Hyd/2019 decided on 11.03.2020. 5. The question of law to be considered was "whether the payments made to the international telecom operators be held to be in the nature of fees for technical services or not." 6. Initially the Assessin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....consideration four (4) years as the prescribed period within which the proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) had to be initiated. 9. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the decision of this High Court itself in the case of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax I WP 1513 of 2019 of High Court for the State of Telangana dated 21.06.2023 wherein the Division Bench of this High Court vide its judgment dated 21.06.2023 in paragraph Nos. 26 to 31 held as under: "26. With utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court. As we have already seen, initially the statute did not provide for any limitation, be it a resident Indian or a non-res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a general principle it may not be possible as well as feasible on the part of the Court to say definitely that a period of four years or one year would be the period of limitation for passing an order under Section 201(1) or 201(1A) of the Act when the legislature has consciously not prescribed any such limitation. But one thing is very clear, that is, when the legislature has prescribed a period of seven years as the limitation for a resident Indian, it would not be justified to read a limitation of less than seven years in the case of a non-resident. The difficulty that would accrue to realisation of tax qua a non-resident would be much more than that of a person, who is a resident. In our view, limitation period of seven years prescribed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of admission, Sri Sanchith Jolly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (appearing virtually) contended that the core issue involved in the case is, "as to whether the payments made to the international telecom operators be held to be in the nature of fees for technical services or not" has been now laid to rest by the Department itself wherein the Joint Director of Income Tax (OSD)(LNR) New Delhi, vide its correspondence dated 21.04.2022 had decided as a matter of principle not to challenge any further the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in an identical issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, Bangalore vs. Vodafone South Ltd. 2016 (72) taxmann.com 347 (Karnataka). Thus the present appeals according to the learne....