Case Law Details
Shri Goutam Mukhopadhyay Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
It is not in dispute that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 96,000/- to Mahua Basu Mallick for displaying articles towards Cancel Awareness Programme in Bengali language pursuant to dictations given by the assessee in English. In effect, this is nothing but a payment made for translation of articles from English to Bengali. This, in our considered opinion, does not require any professional skill, so as to fall within the ken of provisions of section 194J of the Act. Hence in our considered opinion, the provisions of 194J of the Act are not attracted in the facts of the instant case with regard to the subject mentioned payment of Rs. 96,000/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Kolkata [in short the ld. CIT] in Memo no. PCIT-8, Kolkata/U/s.263/2017-18/5207-5210 dated 28.09.2017 passed u/s 263 of the Act against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-22, Kolkata [in short the ld. AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] dated 16.12.2015 for the Assessment year 2013-14.
2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in respect of payments made to Mahua Basu Mallick in the sum of Rs. 96,000/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
