2016 (2) TMI 877 - AT - Income Tax

TDS U/s 194J - sharing of fees - payments made by the appellant to ITGK for its share in RS-CIT course fees - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 the uncontroverted fact which emerges from the record is to the effect that the payments in question were not made by assessee qua any service of professional or technical nature rendered to the payee. All the above entities by a valid collaboration, formed a business module on the revenue sharing basis for imparting computer education to Rajasthan Govt. employees and others. The services if any were provided to the students and the payee in question. The nature of internal distribution of revenue based on the mutual agreements can t be held to be rendering of professional or technical services by any stretch of imagination. We find merit in the erudite contentions of ld. counsel for the assessee. Our view is reinforced by Hon ble Delhi High court judgment in the case of Career Launchers 2012 (4) TMI 440 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the act of sharing of revenue in a multi entity business model cannot be held as contract payments and taking the logic further they cannot be held as payments on account of rendering of any professional or technical services as contemplated by Section 194J of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur.
2. Non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Applicability of Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on payments made to ITGK.
4. Nature of payments made to ITGK and whether they constitute fees for technical services.
5. Non-consideration of previous favorable judgments and submissions by the appellant.
6. Incorrect determination of TDS liability and related interest under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order:
The appellant argued that the order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur is "bad in law" and should be quashed. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not follow the principles of natural justice and passed a mechanical order without considering the submissions and evidence produced by the appellant. The appellant also highlighted that the findings of the CIT (Appeal, Alwar) in previous assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12) were not considered, which had favorably decided all the issues.

2. Non-compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant claimed that the Assessing Officer did not provide a fair opportunity to present their case, leading to a mechanical order. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur also confirmed the order without considering the detailed submissions and evidence provided by the appellant.

3. Applicability of Section 194J:
The core issue revolves around whether the payments made by the appellant to ITGK for its share in RS-CIT course fees are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer held that the payments made to ITGK fall under the category of "technical service" and are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194J. The appellant argued that the payments were merely an arrangement for sharing fees/revenue received from learners and not payments for technical services.

4. Nature of Payments:
The appellant contended that the payments made to ITGK were not for technical services but were a part of a revenue-sharing arrangement. The appellant explained that the entire course fee collected from learners was deposited in the appellant's account for centralized collection and onward distribution of revenue among various stakeholders, including ITGK. The appellant argued that the nature of the payments was not for rendering technical services but for sharing the fees collected from learners.

5. Non-consideration of Previous Judgments and Submissions:
The appellant highlighted that the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur did not consider the findings and detailed order given by CIT (Appeal, Alwar) for previous assessment years, which had favorably decided the issues. The appellant also mentioned that various judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court, including the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited v. CIT, were not properly considered.

6. Incorrect Determination of TDS Liability:
The Assessing Officer determined that the appellant did not deduct TDS on payments aggregating to Rs. 18,02,92,891/- under Section 194J of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer created a demand under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS and related interest. The appellant argued that the payments were not liable for TDS deduction as they were part of a revenue-sharing arrangement and not fees for technical services.

Judgment:
The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. The Tribunal noted that the identical issue had been decided by the Coordinate Bench in the appellant's favor for previous assessment years (2009-10 to 2011-12). The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments that the payments in question were not for rendering professional or technical services but were part of a revenue-sharing arrangement. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur and allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the payments made to ITGK were not liable for TDS deduction under Section 194J of the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the payments made to ITGK were not liable for TDS deduction under Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they were part of a revenue-sharing arrangement and not fees for technical services. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of considering previous favorable judgments and submissions by the appellant.

← Previous Next →