IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5985/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 2007) DCIT (LTU), WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CENTRE - 1, 29 TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400020. / VS. M/S. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, 9 TH FLOOR, NIRMAL BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 20. ./ PAN : AAACR4849R ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY BAHADUR, CIT - DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FIROZE B ANDHYARUJINA / DATE OF HEARING : 09.11.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .11.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 25.9.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 24, MUMBAI DATED 24.6.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE SUBSCRIPTION FEES PAID TO TATA SONS LTD FROM FRINGE BENEFIT ASSESSABLE U/S 115WB(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 7 OF THE CIT (A) S ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FEES WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TATA SONS LTD FOR US OF BRAND. THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS BROUGHT IN TH E SCOPE OF FRINGE BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115WB(2)(D) O F THE ACT AND THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CAME UP FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE AYS 2007 - 2008 WHERE THE ITAT ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) IN THE PRESENT CASE FOLLOWED THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AYS 2007 - 2008. THIS VIEW WAS ACTUALLY UPHEL D BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE APPEAL ITA NO.1131 OF 2012, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 1 - 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE MODIFICATION ORDERS ISSUED BY THE AO FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 AND THE OTHER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AYS 2007 - 08; 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, PARA 5.2 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REG ARD. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PARA AND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 5.2........THE HONBLE ITAT HAD PASSED AN ORDER FOR AY 2007 - 2008 (THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED ABOVE) DECIDING THE IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE CLAIM MADE BY IT. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AVAILABLE ON RECORD VIS - A - VIS THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE AY 2007 - 2008, THAT THEY ARE SIMILAR AND ONLY THE QUANTUM OF SUBSCRIPTION OF FEE VARIES. FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT FOR THE AY 2007 - 08, IT IS HELD THAT THE SUBSCRIPTION FEES PAID IS NOT SUBJECT TO FBT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ALLOWED............. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDI CATED THE ISSUE AND GRATED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE BINDING ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL ISSUES. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACTUALLY FRIVOLOUS AND THEY SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 T H NOVEMBER, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( C.N . PRASAD ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 18.11 .2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI