Theatre owner’s share of net box office collections not eligible for Tax: CESTAT

Case Details: Gautam Bhattacharya vs Commissioner of Central Tax - [2022] 137 taxmann.com 14 (Bangalore - CESTAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member and C.J. Mathew, Technical Member
  • Prasad Paranjape, Adv. for the Appellant. 
  • Mrs. C.V. Savitha, Supt. AR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant was a partner of the partnership firm. It had filed its income tax returns showing components such as the sale of services against which it has received the amount from the partnership firm as its income. The department demanded service tax for the amount shown as the sale of service.

CESTAT Held

The Tribunal held that the service recipient is a partnership firm. The partners of the partnership firm and partnership firm are the same. A person cannot provide service to oneself. There is no service recipient in the present case and no service has been provided by the appellants. The figures shown as the sale of service in Income-tax Return is a portion of profit earned by appellants from partnership firm. The same is not taxable.

Case Review

• • Amrish Rameshchandra Shah v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 387 of 2021, dated 8-3-2021] (para 6) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• • Amrish Rameshchandra Shah v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 387 of 2021, dated 8-3-2021] (para 3)
  • CIT v. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 1 SCC 431 (para 3)