9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transmission and wheeling charges paid by the Assessee for transmission of electricity attract the provisions of deduction of tax u/s 194J or 194C. 2. Whether the Assessee is liable to be treated as "assessee in default" for non-deduction of TDS on payment of transmission charges. 3. Whether the payment of transmission charges can be considered as rent u/s 194I for the use of plant and machinery (transmission line). Summary: Issue 1: Deduction of Tax u/s 194J or 194C The Assessee, a company engaged in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, was scrutinized for compliance with TDS provisions. The AO contended that the transmission of electricity is a technical service, necessitating TDS deduction u/s 194J at 10%. However, the CIT(A) held that the Assessee should deduct tax u/s 194C at 2%, as the transmission of electricity involves minimal human intervention and primarily uses technology. The CIT(A) referenced case laws such as Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT and DCIT vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., which support the view that the use of technology without significant human involvement does not constitute technical services u/s 194J. Issue 2: Assessee in Default The AO treated the Assessee as "assessee in default" for not deducting TDS u/s 194J on transmission charges, resulting in a tax liability of Rs. 104,80,92,226/- u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). The CIT(A) partially relieved the Assessee by directing the AO to recompute the liability under section 201(1) and 201(1A) at the correct rate of 2% u/s 194C, instead of 10% u/s 194J. Issue 3: Transmission Charges as Rent u/s 194I The Revenue argued that the transmission charges could be considered as rent u/s 194I for the use of transmission lines owned by GETCO. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found this argument untenable, as the payments were for the transmission of electricity, not for the use of plant and machinery per se. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, referencing similar cases such as Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Addl. C.I.T, concluded that the transmission and wheeling charges paid by the Assessee do not attract the provisions of deduction of tax u/s 194J. The Tribunal held that the payments were for services rendered in transmitting electricity, which falls under the purview of section 194C. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Assessee should deduct tax at 2% u/s 194C on transmission charges and not at 10% u/s 194J. The Assessee was not liable to be treated as "assessee in default" for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194J. The payment of transmission charges was not considered as rent u/s 194I. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and those of the Assessee were allowed.
|
