9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service and therefore sec. 194J steps in. We notice in this backdrop of facts this tribunal’s decision in DCIT vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics [2007 (11) TMI 436 - ITAT DELHI] rejected Revenue’s similar substantive grievance seeking to treat contractual payments as fee for technical services The person rendering certain services has only maintained machinery or converted yam but that knowledge is not now vested with the assessee by which itself it can do research work. In the circumstances, the amount paid cannot be considered as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 194J. We offered sufficient opportunities to the learned departmental representative for indicating any technical expertise to have been made available to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsing Assessing Officer's action treating annual maintenance contracts "AMC" payments made to various payees as fee for technical services. as follows:- "3. The AO' order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) has merely repeated general observation in respect of 17 payees. The AO's argument is that as expert or knowledgeable manpower was utilized the appellant is required to deduct TD u/s.194J. Thereby, the AO implies that what was paid by the appellant to vario9us contractors were fees for technical services. The AO has thus treated payments to all 17 parties as listed in his order as liable to deduction u/s. 194J.Reasons for his decision is mere repetitive in respect of all payees. There is no finding in the order that fees were paid for the servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce services from the payees in issue. It deducted TDS thereupon u/s 194C of the Act. The Revenue's endeavour herein is that the payee(s) party had rendered technical service and therefore sec. 194J steps in. We notice in this backdrop of facts this tribunal's decision in DCIT vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics ITA No. 1354/Del/2005 decided on 30.11.2007 rejected Revenue's similar substantive grievance seeking to treat contractual payments as fee for technical services as follows:- "1. Ground Nos.1 to 3. The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'H' in the case of DCIT Circle-51(1), New Delhi Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. (in appeal no.1354 (Delhi) of 2005, A.Y. 1999-2000, November 30, 2007). The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient chargeable under the head 'salaries '. " Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. (supra) observed thus: "In the modem day world almost every facet of one's life is linked to science and technology inasmuch as numerous things used or relied upon in everyday life is the result of scientific and technological development. Every instrument or gadget that is used to make life easier is the result of scientific invention or development and involve the use of technology. On that score) every provider of every instrument or facility used by a person cannot be regarded as providing technical service. " "When a person hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment does not result in the provision of technical service to the customer for a fee. When a person decides to subscribe to a cellular telephone service in order to have the facility of being able to communicate with others he does not contract to receive a technical service. What he does agree to is to pay for the use of the airtime for which he pays a charge. The fact that the telephone service provider has installed sophistical technical equipment in the exchange to ensure connectivity to its subscriber, does not on that score, make it provision of technical service to the subscriber. The subscriber is not concerned with the complexity of the equipment installed in the exchange or the location of the base station. All that he wants is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, the amount paid cannot be considered as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 194J of the Act.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
5. We offered sufficient opportunities to the learned departmental representative for indicating any technical expertise to have been made available to the assessee payer forming sine qua non to invoke sec. 194J r.w.s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. There is no such evidence forthcoming from the case file. We therefore follow the above referred co-ordinate bench's decision to affirm the CIT(A)'s findings under challenge in all three instant case(s).
6. These three Revenue's appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court 30/11/2018 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
