2014 (8) TMI 949 - AT - Income Tax

Non deduction of TDS - Whether the assessee was required to deduct TDS in respect of 'Wheeling and Transmission Charges' paid to Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (MSETCL) either under section 194-I or under section 194J. - Held that - A perusal of the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) while accepting the appeal of the assessee reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the various decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal to hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS either under section 194-I or section 194J on the 'Wheeling and Transmission Charges' paid by the assessee in case of which provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 were applicable. - D.R. could not produce any contrary decision which may justify departure from the almost well settled position of law - following the decision of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS) Range-2 2012 (8) TMI 519 - ITAT, MUMBAI - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal by Revenue on TDS deduction for 'Wheeling and Transmission Charges' under sections 194-I or 194J.

Analysis:
The judgment involves six appeals by the Revenue concerning the deduction of TDS on 'Wheeling and Transmission Charges' paid to Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee had not deducted TDS. The AO held that the charges were akin to 'Rent' and thus subject to TDS under section 194-I. Additionally, the AO considered the charges as fees for technical services, attracting section 194J. However, the AO later found that the demand for TDS could not be enforced as the payee had already paid taxes for the relevant year.

The assessee appealed against being considered an assessee in default under section 201(1). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing precedents where ITAT held that such charges did not fall under sections 194-I or 194J. The CIT(A) referenced decisions involving similar cases and upheld that the assessee was not in default for TDS deduction. The Revenue challenged this decision before the ITAT.

The ITAT examined the arguments presented. It noted that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on precedents and upheld that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the charges in question. The ITAT found no contrary decision to justify deviating from the established legal position. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on 'Wheeling and Transmission Charges' under sections 194-I or 194J. The judgment relied on established legal precedents and found no reason to depart from the consistent interpretation of the law in similar cases. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.