9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of internet charges of Rs. 6,40,000/- for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194J. The AO also held the assessee is in default in respect of payment of bank guarantee charges of Rs. 1,95,64,794/- paid without deducting tax at source u/s.194A(3). 3. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO with regard to internet charges, whereas in respect of bank guarantee charges held in favour of assessee. 4. Against the above order of CIT(A), both revenue and assessee are in further appeal before us. 5. Learned AR placed on the order of the tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 dated 29/04/2016, wherein both the issues were decided in favour of assessee after having the following observation:- 3. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) in relation to the requirement of TDS on payment made for internet charges. 5. The aforesaid factual matrix has not been disputed by the Ld. Departmental Representative. It is quite evident from record that in the instant case the CIT(Appeals) has followed the decision of the another CIT(Appeals) -14, Mumbai dated 15/10/2013(supra) on a similar issue, which has been accepted by the Revenue inasmuch as no appeal on the point has been preferred before the Tribunal, though on other issues the Department came in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.7630/Mum/2013(supra). On this count itself, the Grounds of appeal No. 1&2 raised by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(Appeals). In this view of the matter Revenue has to fail on this aspect also. 6. We have carefully gone through the orders of the Tribunal and found that in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 both the issues have been decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 had decided both the issues in assessee's favour after observing as under:- 5. We have considered rival contentions and found that while deleting the disallowance the CIT(A) has relied on the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that no TDS is required to be deducted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 318 ITR (AT) 179 (Mum), wherein it was held that under the provisions of sec. 194J of the Act (i) there should be payment in the nature of fees and (ii) it should be for availing of technical services. The expression technical service has not been defined in section 194J but the meaning given to the expression has been adopted from Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of section 9(1). The assessee had availed of bandwidth services and other infrastructure for providing internet access to its customers. These were standard facilities availed of by the assessee. Therefore, the payment made by assessee company to VSNL, MTNL and other concerns for availing of the services could not be said to be within the meaning of section 194J read with Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
