9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [ 2004 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] has held that if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law and the letter dated 21 st April, 2022, this Court is of the view that the appellant-revenue has consciously elected not to challenge the aforesaid judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which hold that no TDS is required to be deducted by the assessee on payment of interconnect user charges as it cannot be categorized as fee for technical services. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the said view would be binding on the appellant-revenue. Learned predecessor Division Bench had directed the counsel for the appellant-revenue to obtain necessary instructions from the CBDT as to the way forward. 4. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned standing counsel for the revenue has handed over a letter dated 21st April, 2022 written by JDIT(OSD)(L R), New Delhi addressed to the Commissioner of the Income Tax, High Court Cell (Judicial), New Delhi. The said letter is taken on record. The said letter reads as under :- To, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), High Court Cell, Delhi Respected Sir, Sub: Urgent Instructions required in the case of Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the appellant-revenue having taken a conscious decision to accept the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments:- A. Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2005) 6 SCC 95 5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
