9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 471 - AT - Income TaxNon deduction of tds on datalink charges - technical services u/s 194J - Held that - As decided in assessee own case 2015 (1) TMI 236 - ITAT PUNE merely because for maintenance purpose certain human intervention was provided, cannot lead to the surmise that the DATA link charges paid to various telecom service providers, were in the nature of technical services governed by the provisions of section 194J of the Act. The DATA link charges were paid for utilizing the standard facilities which were provided by the individual service providers by way of use of technical gadgets which were made available vide DATA link satellite link line established from one service provider to be carried over to the other service provider, does not involve technical services as there was only interconnection of the networks to the equipments of other service providers. In the absence of any human intervention for transmitting the DATA through such DATA link satellite link line, the payments made for utilizing such services was not in the nature of technical services governed by section 194J of the Act. Accordingly,hold that DATA link charges were not liable for tax deduction at source under the provisions of section 194J of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of tax under section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on Data Link Charges. 2. Liability of the assessee for interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-deduction of tax at source. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deductibility of Tax under Section 194J on Data Link Charges: The core issue in both appeals is whether the Data Link Charges paid by the assessee to various telecom service providers are subject to tax deduction at source under section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that these charges were fees for technical services, thereby necessitating tax deduction at source. The AO raised a demand of Rs. 99,17,920/- and charged interest of Rs. 35,70,450/- under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively, due to the assessee's failure to deduct tax. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on previous appellate orders and the Pune Bench Tribunal's decision in Scigen Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., which mandated the calculation of interest under section 201(1A) from the date of payment/credit until the completion of the assessment of the deductee. Upon appeal, the Tribunal examined the nature of Data Link Charges, referencing its own prior decisions in the assessee's case for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The Tribunal concluded that the Data Link Charges were paid for using standard facilities provided by service providers through technical gadgets, without human intervention. The Tribunal noted that technical services under section 194J necessitate human involvement, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the Data Link Charges did not qualify as fees for technical services under section 194J. The Tribunal also referenced several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Skycell Communications Ltd. Vs. DCIT and the Bangalore Bench in Infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which supported the view that payments for bandwidth and similar services, devoid of human intervention, are not subject to tax deduction under section 194J. 2. Liability for Interest under Section 201(1A): Given that the Tribunal determined there was no requirement for the assessee to deduct tax at source under section 194J, it followed that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in this regard. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for interest under section 201(1A). The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and deleted both the demand raised under section 201(1) and the interest charged under section 201(1A). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals, holding that the Data Link Charges were not subject to tax deduction at source under section 194J, and thus, the assessee was not liable for any demand or interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The decision in ITA No. 1636/PN/2014 applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 1637/PN/2014, resulting in both appeals being allowed.
|
