9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered by the assessee and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the type of service rendered by the assessee is a 'basic telecommunication service'. Furthermore, the official website of the BSNL also shows EPABX as one of the enterprises services provided by BSNL. The official website of BSNL also states that it permits telephone subscribers to use their own PABX/EPABX connected to the BSNL network under certain commercial/technical conditions. Thus, this type of service done by the assessee is an authorised 'telecommunication service' in association with BSNL. Income Tax Officer v. Quick Telecom, Mumbai [2011 (1) TMI 1537 - ITAT MUMBAI] also examined an identical agreement as that of the agreement entered into by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the nature of service done by the assessee is that of commission agent of BSNL and they do not render any telecommunication service. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee, under Section 80IA 4(ii) of the Act, was rejected. The assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CITA' for brevity), who by a common order dated 30.08.2006 allowed the appeals. The Revenue, being aggrieved by such order, preferred appeals to the Tribunal. However, it appears that none appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by the impugned order held that the assessee is collecting charges on commission basis on behalf of BSNL and therefore, cannot be said to be a provider of telecommunicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding 'basic telecommunication services' to its customers and therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii) of the Act and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction, as claimed by the assessee, in its return of income for the relevant assessment years. 6.The Tribunal reversed the decision of the CITA on a very slender point by stating that the assessee is collecting commission charges and therefore, not a provider of telecommunication services. We are unable to accept the finding recorded by the Tribunal for more than one reason. Firstly we fully subscribe to the finding rendered by the CITA and we are satisfied that the assessee is providing 'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , radio paging and cellular mobile telephone services) which is made available to users by means of any transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing images and sounds or intelligence of any nature, by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic means but shall not include broadcasting services . 9.We find that the definition of 'telecommunication service', as defined under Section 2(k) of the TRAI Act, is a very wide and comprehensive definition, which includes services of any description, which is made available to users by means of any transmission or reception of signs, signals etc. Thus, the definition being very wide and inclusive definition, it would encompass all types of services regardless of the description an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith BSNL and held that merely because the services are provided in association with MTNL (in that case), it does not mean that the assessee is not providing the 'basic telecommunication services'. 10.Thus, for all the above reasons, we find that the interpretation given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is perfectly valid and proper and the interference by the Tribunal to such an order was uncalled for. In the result, the Tax Case Appeals filed by the appellant/assessee are allowed and the common order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are restored and the Substantial Question of Law is answered in favour of the assessee. No costs. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
