2016 (11) TMI 878 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194J - Non deduction of tds on settlement and custody fees paid- Held that - As relying on assessee s own case payment made by the assessee cannot be treated as a payment towards technical services and, at any rate, the companies having treated this amount as income and offered to tax the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) do not apply to the facts of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) - Applicability of TDS on payments made to NSDL/CDSL.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) - Applicability of TDS on payments made to NSDL/CDSL

The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the applicability of TDS on payments made by the assessee to NSDL/CDSL. The Assessing Officer contended that the payment made to NSDL/CDSL constituted professional services attracting provisions of section 194J, leading to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, the assessee argued that the payments were for "BENPOS" charges, not professional services, as NSDL provided data on a cash and carry basis, not technical services. The assessee also relied on precedents to support their stance that no disallowance should be made under section 40(a)(ia) if the payee accounted for the payment as income. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contentions, setting aside the disallowance.

Issue 2: Judicial Precedents and Interpretation

The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents, including the decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-2008, where it was observed that the services provided by NSDL/CDSL were fully automated without any human element, and there was no exclusivity of services to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the payments did not fall under the purview of technical services under section 194J. Moreover, since NSDL/CDSL treated the amounts as income and offered them for taxation, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the payments made to NSDL/CDSL were not for technical services attracting TDS under section 194J. The Tribunal also noted that since the payee treated the amounts as income and paid taxes, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) did not apply. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.