ITA Nos. 300 to 304/Chd/2013, (Assessment Year: 2005-2006;2006-2007;2007-2008;2008-2009;2009-2010). Case: Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs A.C.I.T.. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA Nos. 300 to 304/Chd/2013, (Assessment Year: 2005-2006;2006-2007;2007-2008;2008-2009;2009-2010) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ronak Doshi and For Respondents: Jyoti Kumari |
| Judges | T.R. Sood, Member (A) and Sushma Chowla, Member (J) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act |
| Judgement Date | September 10, 2014 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
(ITAT Chandigarh 'A' Bench)
-
These appeals are directed against the orders dated 1.12.201 and 4.12.2012 of the Ld. CIT(A), Chandigarh.
ITA No. 300/Chd/2013
-
In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:
"Non deduction of TDS u/s. 194C of the Act on payment of roaming charges to the other telecom operations:
1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) err ed in not adjudicating the plea of the appellant that the payment made for the use of standard facility does not amounts to "fees for technical services" as defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(i)(vii) of the Act.
-
The appellant prays that the payment made for use of standard facility does not amounts to "fees for technical services" and hence the appellant is not required to deduct tax on roaming charges paid to the Other Telecom Operators u/s. 194J of the Act and consequently, it be held that the appellant cannot be an "assessee in default" u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194J of the Act."
-
After hearing both the parties we find that a TDS inspection/survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 27.01.201. From the details furnished by the assessee deductor company it was noticed that the assessee was not deducting tax at source from the payments made towards roaming charges (National Roaming and International Roaming charges) as required u/s. 194J of the Act. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 12.3.2010 was issued asking the assessee to submit the details. In response it was mainly submitted that whenever subscriber to a State or place where our network is not available, the subscriber is provided the facility of making and receiving calls by using the network of other telecom operators with which we have entered into an agreement for the use of each others network by their respective subscribers. The charges for this facility are collected by us from subscriber and paid to other telecom operators, which provide the facility to our subscriber. It is further submitted that this is a standard facility, popularly called "roaming facility", provided by a telecom operator to other telecom operators and vice versa. It was further submitted that roaming facilities did not involve human intervention at any stage and is provided automatically through sophisticated equipment installed by various telecom operators. A technical note was also furnished. It was contended that any payment for use of standard facility does not amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial