2011 (10) TMI 635 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of SEBI Interest Regulation Scheme, 2004, by holding that the liability crystalised during the previous year, even though interest pertained to earlier period? - Tribunal allowed claim - Held that - In the present case, the liability to pay interest crystalised in the assessment year in question even though the interest pertained to the earlier period. Thus, in our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of fact and no question of law arises. Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. Disallowance of VSAT charges and lease line charges by holding that the assessee did not have tax withholding obligation under section 194J - Held that - Similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of the Income Tax Commissioner Mumbai City-4 vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. 2014 (5) TMI 584 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has been dismissed on 28th July, 2011. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest under SEBI Interest Regulation Scheme, 2004.
2. Disallowance of VSAT charges and lease line charges under section 194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the disallowance of interest under the SEBI Interest Regulation Scheme, 2004. The Revenue raised a question regarding the deletion of a disallowance of a specific amount by the Tribunal. The High Court noted that the ITAT had found that the liability to pay interest had crystallized in the assessment year under consideration, even though the interest related to an earlier period. The Court held that this finding was based on a question of fact, and no question of law arose. Therefore, the Court concluded that the decision of the ITAT was valid, and the first question could not be entertained.

2. Moving on to the second issue concerning the disallowance of VSAT charges and lease line charges under section 194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to a similar question raised in another case, where it was dismissed. The Court stated that since a similar issue had been dealt with and dismissed previously, the second question raised by the Revenue in the present case could not be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal with no order as to costs.

In summary, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both issues. The first issue regarding the disallowance of interest under the SEBI Interest Regulation Scheme was found to be a question of fact, and the decision of the ITAT was upheld. The second issue concerning VSAT charges and lease line charges was not entertained due to a similar previous dismissal.