9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant, these will also not be charged u/s 194J. Rendering of services by using technical knowledge or skill is different than charging fees for technical services. Where the services of technically qualified person were rendered only for maintaining machinery but that knowledge did not vest in the assessee so that assessee itself could make use of it, the amount cannot be considered as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 194J. See DCIT v Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd [2007 (11) TMI 436 - ITAT DELHI]. Thus the appellant has rightly deducted tax at source u/s 194C. Charging of interest u/s 201(1A) on short deduction of various contract payments - Held that:- CIT(A) has given cogent reasons for coming to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in overlooking the head note of sec. 194J which clearly speaks that TDS provision u/s 194J are applicable in respect of fees for technical services and the work contract executed was not a normal contract but a contract for a specific maintenance of machinery which are used for material purpose. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above effect. 2. The Revenue has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) also stated that one should not go by the nomenclature given to particular head of payment for subjecting such payment for tax deduction because in circular No.715 dated 08.08.1995, it has been clarified by the Board that the incidents of deduction of tax at source do not depend upon the nomenclature, but on the contents of the agreement. From the details submitted by the assessee, it is evident that provision of section 194J will not be applicable. The decision of Ld. CIT(A) is not justified because as per the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A), nature of work undertaken by the parties are inclusive of the work which can be carried out by the technically qualified persons only at it is found that contract made for maintenance of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at source u/s 194C. The Revenue worked out the amount of tax deductible u/s 194J at Rs.6,03,709/- as against which the assessee had deducted a sum of Rs.1,39,268/- u/s. 194C of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,741/- being short deduction of tax at source along with interest Rs.1,34,161/- u/s 201(1A). 5. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee with the following observations:- 3.3 In ground No.1, the appellant has challenged action of the AO in applying provisions of section 194J instead of 194C as contended by the appellant. I have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the order. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 194J. In the case of DCIT v Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd [2008] 20 SOT 248 (Del)], it was held that - There may be use of services of technically qualified person services but that itself do not bring the amount paid as fees for technical services within the meaning of Expln 2 to section 9(1)(vii). The amounts paid are towards annual maintenance contract of certain machinery or for converting partially oriented yard (POY) into texturized/twisted yarn. The technology or technical knowledge of persons is not made available to the assessee but only by using such technical knowledge services are rendered to the assessee. In such a case, it cannot be said that the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. and M/s. Siemens Ltd. 6. The appeal first came up for hearing on 6.3.2013. Application for adjournment was received from M/s M J Rindani Associates. Though the said application was not accompanied by any power of attorney authorizing M/s M J Rindani Associates to represent the assessee-hospital before this Tribunal, the application for adjournment was allowed in good faith and under the impression that proper power of attorney would be filed on the next date of hearing without reminder. Next date of hearing was fixed on 11.4.2013. On 11.04.2013, application for adjournment was again received from M/s M J Rindani Associates. There was no power of attorney on record authorizing the said firm, i.e., M/s. M J Rindani Associates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
