ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 541/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57525 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTHA
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 133A; 201(1); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. & ASSESSMENT YEARS APPELLANT RESPONDENT. 53 0 TO 535/BANG/2011 2005-06 TO 2007-08 BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 16(1), BANGALORE. 546 TO 548/BANG/2010 2005-06 TO 2007-08 BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 16(1), BANGALORE. 541 TO 545/BANG/2010 2004-05 TO 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 16(1), BANGALORE. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPP LY CO. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. 256 TO 260/BANG/2011 2004-05 TO 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 16(1), BANGALORE. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. SRIDHAR. REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. AMBASTHA. DATE OF HEARING : 05.03.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2012. O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE MULTIPLE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-V, BANGALORE DT.29.1.2010 ON THE ISSUE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U NDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE INCOME TAX 2 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS 'THE ACT') AND CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) R.W.S.194J OF THE ACT. 2. THE DETAILS OF APPEALS FILED ARE AS UNDER : 2.1 REVENUE FILED APPEALS IN ITA NOS.541 TO 545/BAN G/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 ON 16.4.2010 IN RESPECT OF DISPU TES ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194J FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TOO FILED APPEALS ON THE ISSUES OF SLDC CHARGES IN ITA NOS.546 TO 548/BANG/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005-06 TO 2007-08 ON 20.4.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARINGS, THIS TRI BUNAL INSTRUCTED BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE TO FILE SEPARATE APPEALS FOR EACH YEAR IN R ESPECT OF THE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RESPECTIVELY. IN PURSUANCE OF D EFECT MEMOS ISSUED, REVENUE FILED APPEALS IN ITA NOS.256 TO 260/BANG/2011 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 ON 10.3.2011 ON THE ISSUE OF CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FILED REVI SED GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND REQUE STED THAT THE APPEALS NOS.541 TO 545/BANG/2010 FILED ON 16.4.2010 BE TREATED AS IN R ESPECT OF THE DISPUTE RELATING TO SECTION 201(1). THE ASSESSEE TOO FILED FRESH APPEA LS ON 9.5.2011IN ITA NOS.530, 532 AND 534/BANG/2011 IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTE UNDER SECTI ON 201(1) AND APPEALS IN ITA NOS.531, 533 AND 535/BANG/2010 IN RESPECT OF CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARINGS, THE LEARNED AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FILING OF SEPARATE APPEALS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 201(1A) ON 9.5.2011, THE ORIGINAL APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ. ITA NOS.546 TO 5 48/BANG/2010 ARE NOW NOT MAINTAINABLE AND MAY BE TREATED AS WITHDRAWN. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.546 TO 548/BANG/2010 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 2.3 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE AT PARAS 2.1 AND 2.2, THE FOLLOWING APPEALS NOW REMAIN TO BE DECIDED : ASSESSMENT YEAR DEPARTMENT APPEALS U/S. 201(1) R.WS. 194J DEPARTMENT APPEALS U/S. 201(1A) ASSESSEE S APPEALS U/S.201(1) R.W.S. 194J ASSESSEE S APPEALS U/S.201(1A) 2004 - 05 541/BANG/2010 256/BANG/2011 -- - 2005 - 06 542/BANG/2010 257/BANG/2011 530/BANG/2011 531/BANG/2011 2006 - 07 543/BANG/2010 258/BANG/2011 532/BANG/2011 533/BANG/2011 2007 - 08 544/BANG/2010 259/BANG/2011 534/BANG/2011 535/BANG/2011 2008 - 09 545/BANG/2010 260/BANG/2011 -- -- IN VIEW OF COMMON ISSUES BEING INVOLVED AND THE GRO UND OF APPEALS RAISED BEING SIMILAR, THESE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF B Y WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. FACTS OF THE CASES, AS PER REC ORDS, ARE AS UNDER : 3.1 THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUP PLY COMPANY LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS BESCOM) IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 30.4.2002 UNDER THE INDIAN 4 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS A WHOLLY OWNED GOVT. OF KARN ATAKA UNDERTAKING. CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS WAS OBTAINED ON 13.5.2002. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIDE ORDER NO.DE 14 PSR 2002 DATED 31.5.2002 PUBLISHED THE SEC OND TRANSFER SCHEME CALLED KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REFORMS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION UNDERTAKINGS. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE KARNATAKA ELEC TRICITY BOARD (KEB) WOULD BE UNBUNDLED INTO THE FOLLOWING ENTITIES : I) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. (KPCL) (POWER G ENERATION COMPANY) II) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD. (KPTCL ) (TRANSMISSION COMPANY) III) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. (BESCOM) (DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) IV) MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. (MESCOM) (DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) V) HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (HESCOM) ( DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) VI) GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. (GESCOM) ( DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) VII) CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. (CES COM) (DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) 3.2 ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME, BESCOM W AS VESTED WITH CERTAIN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS OPENING BALANCES AS ON 1.6.2002 IN O RDER TO CARRY ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY IN THE LOCAL AREA ASSIGNED (PRESENTTY C OVERING THE 8 DISTRICTS OF BANGALORE URBAN, BANGALORE RURAL, CHIKKABALLAPUR, TUMKUR, CHI TRADURGA, KOLAR AND DAVANGERE). THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED LICNENCE FOR DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY OF POWER BY KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (KERC) UNDER SECT ION 19 OF THE KERC ACT, 1999. FROM ITS INCEPTION TILL 10.6.2005, BESCOM PURCHASED ELEC TRICITY DIRECTLY FROM KPTCL AND WAS CHARGED BOTH FOR COST OF ELECTRICITY AND COST OF TR ANSMISSION. FROM 10.6.2005, BESCOM 5 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 WAS DIRECTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT THAT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 SHOULD PURCHASE ELECTRICITY DIRECTLY FROM GENERATOR S OF ELECTRICITY AND TO AVAIL THE TRANSMISSION NETWORK OF KPTCL UPTO THE INTERFACE PO INTS. THE TARIFF FOR BOTH POWER PURCHASE AND TRANSMISSION CHARGES WAS PERIODICALLY REVIEWED BY KERC KEEPING IN VIEW ALL ASPECTS OF COSTS INVOLVED IN TRANSMISSION IN ORDER TO HAVE EQUITABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE PRICES IN FIXATION OF POWER COSTS TO THE PUBLIC. SIMILARL Y, BESCOM HAS ALSO AVAILED THE TRANSMISSION NETWORK OF POWER GRID CORPORATION OF I NDIA LTD. (PGCIL) FOR DRAWING ELECTRICITY FROM CENTRAL GENERATING POWER STATIONS OWNED BY NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (NTPC) AND NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (N PC) AT THE TRANSMISSION TARIFF FIXED BY THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (C ERC). 3.3 THE BIFURCATION OF THE FUNCTION OF KARNATAKA EL ECTRICITY BOARD (KEB) BETWEEN THE ABOVE 7 ENTITIES NECESSITATED THE FORMATION OF A CO -ORDINATING BODY TO RESOLVE PROBABLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT MAY ARISE AMONG THEM. I N ANTICIPATION OF SUCH SITUATIONS, THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 MANDATED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH A STATE LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE (SLDC) TO DISCHARGE SUCH CO-ORDINAT IVE FUNCTIONS AS PER SECTION 31 CLAUSE (2) THEREOF WHICH READS AS UNDER : (2) THE SLDC SHALL BE OPERATED BY A GOVERNMENT COMPANY OR ANY AUTHORITY OR CORPORATION ESTABLISHED OR CONSTITUTED BY OR UND ER ANY STATE ACT, AS MAY BE NOTIFIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. PROVIDED THAT UNTIL A GOVERNMENT COMPANY OR AUTHOR ITY OR CORPORATION IS NOTIFIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STU SHALL OPE RATE THE SLDC. 6 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 3.4 THE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY SLDC ARE LAID OUT IN SECTIONS 32 AND 33 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND BASICALLY MANDATE THAT IT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OPTIMUM SCHEDULING AND DISPATCH OF ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE S TATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES THEREIN; M ONITOR GRID OPERATION; KEEP AN ACCOUNT OF THE QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE STATE GRID; SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INTRA-STATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS AND BE RE SPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT REAL OPERATIONS FOR GRID CONTROL AND DISPATCH OF ELECTRI CITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE. 3.5 IN PURSUANCE OF THE ABOVE MANDATE, THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA BY AN ORDER DT.10.5.2005 FORMED THE SLDC FOR SMOOTH FLOW OF OPE RATIONS AMONGST GENERATING COMPANIES. AS A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION WAS IN THE PROCESS OF FORMATION DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE KEY PERSONNEL OF SLDC WERE DRA WN ON DEPUTATION MAINLY FROM AMONGST QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL OF KPTC L (THE STU) AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. THE EMPLOYEES OF SLDC PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AS PERSO NNEL OF SLDC, A SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT STATUTORY BODY UNDER THE ELECTRICITY AC T, 2003 AND IT IS NOT AS ARM OR WING OF KPTCL THOUGH SOME OF ITS EMPLOYEES MAY BE DRAWN FROM THERE. 3.6 IN THIS CASE, THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 15.12.2008 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E PAYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL AND PGCIL IN THE F.YS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 AND SLDC CHARGES ON WHICH NO TDS WAS MADE. IN RESPONSE TO A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED, S HRI RAMESH, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER 7 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 STATED THAT AS PER THE FOLLOWING DECIDED CASES PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 194J WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE : I) CIT VS. BHARATI CELLULAR LTD. (2008) (220 CTR 2 58) (DEL) AND II) SKYCELL COMMUNICATION LTD. VS. DCIT (251 ITR 53 ) (MAD) THE STATEMENT OF C. SREENIVASAN, CHIEF GENERAL MANA GER (F & C) OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALSO RECORDED ON 28.1.2009 IN WHICH HE WAS EXAM INED AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT MADE TDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 194J WHEN MAKING THESE PAYMENTS. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 194 J FOR TDS TO BE MADE FROM PAYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL AND SLDC CHARGES WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVE R, HELD THAT BOTH THESE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE (A) TO KPTCL FOR TRANSMISSION CHARGES AND (B) SLDC CHARGES, WERE PAYMENTS FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED AND WERE L IABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS WHICH EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT; I) THE LIST OF WORKS PERFORMED BY KPTCL FOR THE ASSESS EE IS A SERVICE. II) TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY IS A TECHNICAL SERVICE AS IT IS NOT JUST A CASE OF USING THE SYSTEM SET UP BY KPTCL. BUT, KPTCL HAS TO PERF ORM CERTAIN ACTIVITIES TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY THE REOF FOR WHICH TECHNICAL SUPPORT OF SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTS AND SERVICES OF TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED STAFF LIKE ENGINEERS ETC ARE REQUIRED TO OPERATE AND MANA GE THE SYSTEM. III) SINCE THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUTBY KPTCL REQUIRED T ECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SERVICE OF TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED STAFF TO MAINTAIN AND OPER ATE THE SYSTEM IN AN EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL MANNER, THEREFORE IT WAS PROVIDING T ECHNICAL SERVICES TO BESCOM FALLING UNDER SECTION 194J. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE IN BHARATI CELLULAR (SUPRA) AND SKYCELL COMMUNICATIONS LTD. (SUPRA) WERE DISTIN GUISHABLE ON FACTS. 8 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 IV) THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOW ING DECISIONS : SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. VS. ITO (2006) 7 SOT 84 (ITAT, CHENNA I), CANARA BANK VS. ITO 305 ITR 189 AND CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS. CIT (1992) (195 ITR 81) (SC). 3.7 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THESE ISSUES OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HOLDING THE PAYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL AND SLDC CHARGES AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE BEING LIABLE TO T DS UNDER SECTION 194J AND CONSEQUENT NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND CHARG ING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DETAILS ON RECORD, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED ON BY BOTH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER & THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID TO KPTCL AND SLDC CHARGES PAID BY BESCOM ARE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER A ND DEALT WITH EACH ONE SEPARATELY. 3.7.1 SLDC CHARGES : IN RESPECT OF SLDC CHARGES PAID, THE LEARNED C IT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY SLDC INVOL VED RENDERING SERVICES TO BESCOM THAT REQUIRE MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE WHI CH SKILLS CAN BE RENDERED BY HUMANS ONLY. HE WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT SLDC IN ITS FORM, DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, APPEARED TO BE INTERIM IN NATURE AND IS NOT FULLY F UNCTIONAL. IT HAD NO OFFICE OF ITS OWN ; TOOK ITS STAFF ON DEPUTATION FROM KPTCL AND DEPENDE D FOR ITS FUNDING ON REIMBURSEMENT OF ITS EXPENSES BY OTHER ENTERPRISES OVER WHOM IT H AS CONTROL. IN PARA 7.10.0 OF HIS ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE PAYME NTS OF SLDC CHARGES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND ARE LIABLE TO TDS AS PER SECTION 194J(1)(B) 9 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 OF THE ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES FAILURE FO R NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) WAS SUSTAINED BY HIM. 3.7.2 TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID TO KPTCL. IN THE COURSE OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE FOR ITS CLAIM FOR NOT BEING LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX O N PAYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL AND SLDC CHARGES ON THE FACTS AND DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAM NIGAM LTD. VS. DCI T (2009) (123 TTJ 888) (JP). THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF T HE CITED CASE (SUPRA) WERE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE (BESCOM) AND THE FI NDING THEREIN APPLICABLE TO IT. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT, THE SERVICES INVOLVED IN TRANS MISSION OF ELECTRICITY WAS AUTOMATIC FROM THE GENERATING POINT OF KPTCL TO THE RECEIVING POINT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS RENDERED BY MACHINES NOT BY HUMANS. THE SERVICES R ENDERED BY HUMANS IN THIS PROCESS WAS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OF KPTCL AND NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, IN PARAS 15.6.0 AND 15.7.0 OF HIS ORDER PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES BY THE ASSESSEE TO KPTCL WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVIC ES AND THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL, CANNOT COME UNDER TH E PURVIEW OF SECTION 194J AND NO TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED THEREON. 3.7.3 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER HELD IN PARA 16.3 .0 OF HIS ORDER THAT IN VIEW OF CBDTS CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95-IT DT.29.1.1997 AND T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX 10 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES LTD. VS. CIT 293 ITR 226 AND THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT OF THE PAYMENT HAS PAID THE TAX THEREON, THERE WAS NO NEED TO RECOVER THE SAME ONCE AGAIN FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFO RE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ENFORCE THE DEMAND RAISED FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND CONSEQUENT CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 4. BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US ON THESE ISSUES IN VARIOUS YEARS. AS DISCUSSED IN PARAS 2.1 TO 2.4 OF THIS ORDER ABOVE, THE APPEALS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN LISTED OUT FOR PROCEEDING TO DECI DE THESE APPEALS ISSUE-WISE. 4.1 TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID TO M/S. KPTCL BY BESC OM. THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DT.29.1.2010 IS CHALLEN GED BY REVENUE ON TWO COUNTS IN MULTIPLE APPEALS (FOR A.YS 2004-05 TO 2008-09). I) IN ITA NOS.541 TO 545/BANG/2010, REVENUE HAS CHALL ENGED THE CIT(A)S FINDING THAT NO TDS WAS TO BE MADE ON TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO KPTCL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 196J ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND THE DELETION OF CONSEQUENT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 201(1) . REVENUE HAS ALSO MADE AN ALTERNATE CLAIM THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT 194I WAS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE (FOR A.YS 2004-05 TO 2008-09). THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE AS UNDER : A) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INSTALLA TION AND OPERATION OF SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENTS WITH A VIEW TO EARN INCOME BY ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF THE USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT D OES NOT RESULT IN THE PROVISIONS OF TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMER FO R A FEE. B) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SERVICES R ENDERED BY THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL FOR INSTALLATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IS RENDERED TO KPTCL ITSELF AND NOT TO THE BESCOM. C) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE BUT FOR THE TECHNIC AL SERVICE BEING AVAILABLE. 11 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 D) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS OF HUMAN INTERFACE AND TECHNICAL SKILL BEING REMUNE RATED EXISTS IN THE DEDUCTORS CASE. E) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED THEREFORE IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J DO NOT APPLY. F) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT SUCH PAYME NTS ARE LIABLE FOR A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 194I FOR USE OF EQUIPMENTS AS PER HIS OWN FINDINGS. G) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. H) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPEAL. II) IN ITA NOS.256 TO 260/BANG/2011 (FOR A.YS 2004-05 T O 2008-09), REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 4.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT IN THESE APPEALS THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER TDS WAS LIABLE TO MADE ON TRAN SMISSION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO KPTCL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OF ELECTRICITY IS AS TECHNICAL AS GENERATION AND REQUIRES TO BE MANNE D BY SKILLED TECHNICIANS WHICH REQUIRE HUMANS INVOLVEMENT AND INTERFACE. THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEDI ASSIST INDIA TPA P. LTD (2010) 324 ITR 356. HE DREW OUR A TTENTION TO PARA 17 THEREOF WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE TERMS OF PAYOUT WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TPA TO PAY THE HOSPITALS, WHEREAS THE I NSURER HAS NO DIRECT ROLE. ULTIMATELY THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AN D THE TPA FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY HOLDS THE FIELD AND IT WAS HELD THAT IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, THE TPA HAD TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WAS ATT RACTED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL 12 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD 62 DTR 339 (BOM). HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAR A 29 THEREOF WHEN THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TRANSACTION CHAR GES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE FOR RENDERING MANAGERIAL SERVICES, BY REGU LATING THE BUSINESS OF SHARES, CONSTITUTE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IN ACCORDANC E WITH SECTION 194J R.W.S. EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(I)(VII) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ASSES SEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BEFORE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE ACC OUNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT AS THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASES WHICH WERE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 194J WAS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPHELD. 4.3 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT THE OU TSET SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID TO KP TCL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR MAKING TDS THEREON AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 196 J OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND CONSEQUENTLY DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASES CITED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN THE CASE OF MEDI ASSIST INDIA TPA P. LTD. VS. DC IT (TDS) & OTHER 324 ITR 356 (KAR), THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT T HAT TPAS WERE PRIVATE PARTIES ENGAGED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, HOSPITALS TO P ERFORM FUNCTIONS THE HOSPITAL IS 13 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 OTHERWISE SUPPOSED TO DO NAMELY, PROCESSING OF BILL S OF PATIENTS FOR THEIR ENTITLEMENTS. TPAS ALSO RENDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO INSURANC E COMPANIES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT AS PER INSURANCE POLICIES. HE STRESSE D THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AND DIRECT HUMAN ELEMENT INVOLVED IN THE SERVICES GIVEN BY TPAS AND THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J WERE ATTRACTED IN TAHT CASE. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA), THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT T HAT THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD HELD THAT THE STOCK EXCHANGE HAD PROVIDED MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICA L SERVICES TO THE BROKERS/MEMBERS FOR REGULATING THE CARRYING ON OF TRADING FOR WHIC H TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID CONSTITUTE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES COVERED UNDER SECTION 194J. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED IT IS ONLY THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRI CITY BY KPTCL TO BESCOM WHICH IS AUTOMATIC AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES NO TECHNICAL SE RVICE FROM THE PERSONNEL EMPLOYED TO MAINTAIN KPTCL TRANSMISSION SO AS TO DERIVE ANY ADD ITIONAL BENEFIT IN CARRYING ON OF ITS WORK OF DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY OF POWER. I N VIEW OF THIS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE URGED THAT THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 4.4 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J AND REITERATED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS ALREA DY RELIED ON BY HIM BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) NAMELY : I) CIT VS. BHARATI CELLULAR LTD ( 2008) 220 CTR (DELHI) 258. II) SKYCELL COMMUNICATION LTD VS. DCIT 251 ITR 53 (MAD). III) JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. DCIT (200 9) 123 TTJ (JP.) 888 14 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T FROM THE LAW, CONCEPT AND PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA) IT IS CLEAR TH AT SECTION 194J APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF A PERSON IS MA DE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS AND NOT WHEN BY USING SUCH TECHNICAL SYSTEMS SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO OTHERS. HE STRESSED THAT WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ELECTRICITY IS PROVIDED AUTO MATICALLY BY USE OF THE MACHINES IN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OF KPTCL, IT IS DIFFERENT FROM CHARGING FEES FOR RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN THE CASE OF SKYCELL COMMUNICATION LTD (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT USE OF TRANSMISSION LINES TO CARRY POWER, TRANSFORMER TO R EGULATE TO FLOW OF CURRENT AND METERS TO MEASURE THE CONSUMPTION WOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES TO A CUSTOMER SO AS TO WARRANT TDS. HE PLACED STRONG RE LIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (JVVNL) (SUPRA) WHI CH HE SUBMITTED WAS IDENTICAL IN FACTUAL MATRIX AND ALSO ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILI TY OF SECTION 194J AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BESCOM AND ESPECIALLY TO PARAS 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.6, 9.7 AND 9.10 THEREOF AND PLEADS THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED BY THE F INDINGS THEREIN. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED AND RELIED UPON. THE TWO DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH ABLE ON FACTS AS LUCIDLY BROUGHT OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN PARA 4.3 OF THIS ORDER. THE DECISION OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAQN NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PERUSED AND WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ASSESS EES CASE AND IS SQUARELY COVERED BY IT. 15 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JVVNL HAS VERY SUCCINCTLY DEALT WITH THE ISSUES AND THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS WHICH BRING OUT THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS USED IN SECTION 194J R.W. EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO EXTRACT RELEVANT PORTIONS OF T HE JUDGEMENT THEREOF. PARA 9.2 : IN ABOVE CONNECTION IT IS RELEVANT TO E XTRACT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS : 194J. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICE S --- (1) ANY PERSON, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR AN HUF, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM BY WAY OF --- A) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OR B) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, OR C) ROYALTY, OR D) ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (VA) OF SECTION 28. SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACC OUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TEN PER CENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN: PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION (A) . (B) . (2)( ..) (3)(..) EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (B) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES SHALL HAVE THE SAME M EANING AS IN EXPLN. 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9; (C) . THE EXPRESSION FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES HAS NO T BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT BUT EXPLN. (B) TO SECTION 1 94J OF THE ACT, PROVIDES THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLN. 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9. THE SAID SECTION IS REPRODUCED HE REIN BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE 16 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 9. INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA.(L) THE FOLLOWING INCOMES SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA: (VII)INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES P AYABLE BY EXPLANATION 2 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, FEES FOR TECHNICA L SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CONSIDERA TION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCL UDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLU DE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDE RTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIEN T CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. PARA 9.3. THE EXPRESSION FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVIC E AS USED IN SECTION 194J OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXHAUSTIVELY EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE D ETHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI CELLALAR LTD. ( SUPRA) AND THE OBSERVATIONS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 13. WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT THE EXPRESSIO N FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS APPEARING IN SECTION 194J OF THE SAID ACT HAS TH E SAME MEANING AS GIVEN TO THE EXPRESSION IN EXPLN. 2 TO SECTION 9(( VIZ) OF THE SAID ACT. IN THE SAID EXPLANATION THE EXPRESSION FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVIC ES. THE WORD TECHNICAL IS PRECEDED BY THE WORD MANAGERIAL AND SUCCEEDED BY THE WORD CONSULTANCY. SINCE THE EXPRESSION TECHNICAL SERVICES IS IN DOUBT AND IS UNCLEAR, THE RULE OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. THE SAID RULE IS EXPLAINED I N MAXWELL ON THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (TWELFTH EDITION) IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: WHERE TWO OR MORE WORDS WHICH ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF ANALOGOUS MEANI NG ARE COUPLED TOGETHER, NOSCITUR A SOCIIS, THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD TO BE USED IN THEIR COGNATE SEN SE. THEY TAKE, AS IT WERE, THEIR COLOUR FROM EACH OTHER, THE MEANI NG OF THE MORE GENERAL BEING RESTRICTED TO A SENSE ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE LESS GENERAL. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE WORD TECHNICAL WOULD TAKE COLOUR FROM THE WORDS MANAGERIAL AND CONSULTANCY BETWEEN WHICH IT IS SANDWICHED. THE WORD MANAGERIA L HAS BEEN DEFINED IN THE SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, FIFTH EDITION AS: OF PERTAINING TO, OR CHARACTERISTIC OF A MANAGER OF OR WITHIN AN ORGANIZ ATION, BUSINESS, ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. THE WORD MANAGER HAS BEEN DEFINED, INTER ALIA, AS: A PERSON WHOSE OFFICE IT IS TO MANAGE AN ORGANIZATION, BUSINESS ESTABLISHMEN T, OR PUBLIC INSTITUTION, OR PART OF ONE; A PERSON WITH THE PRIMARILY EXECUTIVE OR SU PERVISORY FUNCTION WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION ETC.; A PERSON CONTROLLING THE ACTIVITIES OF A PERSON OR TEAM IN SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT, ETC. IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT A MANAGERIAL SERVICE WO ULD BE ONE 17 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 WHICH PERTAINS TO OR HAS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A MA NAGER. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE EXPRESSION MANAGER AND CONSEQUENTLY MANAGERIAL S ERVICE HAS A DEFINITE HUMAN ELEMENT ATTACHED TO IT. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, A MACHIN E CANNOT BE A MANAGER. 14. SIMILARLY, THE WORD CONSULTANCY HAS BEEN DEFI NED IN THE SAID DICTIONARY AS THE WORK OR POSITION OF A CONSULTANT; A DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTANTS. CONSULTANT ITSELF HAS BEEN DEFINED, INTER ALIA, AS A PERSON WHO GIVES PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OR SERVICES IN A SPECIALIZED FIELD. IT IS OBVIOUS THA T THE WORD CONSULTANT IS A DERIVATIVE OF THE WORD CONSULT WHICH ENTAILS DELI BERATIONS, CONSIDERATION, CONFERRING WITH SOMEONE, CONFERRING ABOUT OR UPON A MATTER. CONSULT HAS ALSO BEEN DEFINED IN THE SAID DICTIONARY AS ASK ADVICE FOR, SEEK COUNSEL OR A PROFESSIONAL OPINION FROM; REFER TO (A SOURCE OF INFORMATION); S EEK PERMISSION OR APPROVAL FROM FOR A PROPOSED ACTION. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE SERV ICE ALSO NECESSARILY ENTAILS HUMAN INTERVENTION. THE CONSULTANT, WHO PROVIDES THE CONS ULTANCY SERVICE, HAS TO BE A HUMAN BEING. A MACHINE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A CONS ULTANT. 15. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS APPARENT THAT BOTH THE WORDS MANAGERIAL AND CONSULTANCY INVOLVE A HUMAN ELEMENT. AND, BOTH, M ANAGERIAL SERVICE AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE, ARE PROVIDED BY HUMANS. CONSEQ UENTLY, APPLYING THE RULE OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS, THE WORD TECHNICAL AS APPEARING IN EXPLN. 2 TO SE CTION 9(L)(VIZ) WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS INVOLVING A HUMA N ELEMENT. BUT, THE FACILITY PROVIDED BY MTNL/OTHER COMPANIES FOR INTERCONNECTIO N/PORT ACCESS IS ONE WHICH IS PROVIDED AUTOMATICALLY BY MACHINES. IT IS INDEPE NDENTLY PROVIDED BY THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND THAT TOO, SOPHISTICATED TECHNOLOGY, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT MTNL/OTHER COMPANIES WHICH PROVIDE SUCH FACILITIES ARE RENDERING ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES AS CONTEMPLATED IN EXPLN. 2 TO SECTION 9(1 )(VN) OF THE SAID ACT. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE EXPRESSION TECHNICAL SERVICES TAKES C OLOUR FROM THE EXPRESSIONS MANAGERIAL SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES WH ICH NECESSARILY INVOLVE A HUMAN ELEMENT OR, WHAT IS NOW A DAYS FASHIONABLY CA LLED, HUMAN INTERFACE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE SERVICES RENDERED QUA INTERCONNECTION/PORT ACCESS DO NOT INVOLVE ANY HUMAN INTERFACE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS TECHNICAL SERVICES AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE SAID ACT. 20. BEFORE CONCLUDING WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT O UT THAT THE INTERCONNECTION/PORT ACCESS FACILITY IS ONLY A FACILITY TO USE THE GATEW AY AND THE NETWORK OF MTNL/OTHER COMPANIES. MTNL OR OTHER COMPANIES DO NOT PROVIDE A NY ASSISTANCE OR AID OR HELP TO THE RESPONDENTS/ASSESSEE IN MANAGING, OPERATING, SETTING UP THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE AND NETWORKS. NO DOUBT, THE FACILITY OF INTERCONNEC TION AND PORT ACCESS PROVIDED BY MTNL/OTHER COMPANIES IS TECHNICAL IN THE SENSE TH AT IT MVOLVES SOPHISTICATED TECHNOLOGY. THE FACILITY MAY EVEN BE CONSTRUED AS A SERVICE IN THE BROADER SENSE 18 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 SUCH AS A COMMUNICATION SERVICE. BUT WHEN WE ARE REQUIRED TO INTERPRET THE EXPRESSION TECHNICAL SERVICE, THE INDIVIDUAL MEAN ING OF THE WORDS TECHNICAL AND SERVICE HAVE TO BE SHED. AND, ONLY ONE MEANING OF THE WHOLE EXPRESSION TECHNICAL SERVICES HAS TO BE SEEN. MOREOVER, THE EXPRESSION TECHNICAL SERVICE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE ABSTRACT AND GENERAL SEN SE BUT IN THE NARROWER SENSE AS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE EXPRESSIONS MANAGERIAL SERVIC E AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE AS APPEARING IN EXPLN. 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE S AID ACT. CONSIDERED IN THIS LIGHT, THE EXPRESSION TECHNICAL SERVICE COULD HAVE REFER ENCE TO ONLY TECHNICAL SERVICE RENDERED BY A HUMAN. IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY SERVI CE PROVIDED BY MACHINES OR ROBOTS. PARA 9.4. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SKYCELL COMMUNICATIONS LTD (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IS NOT DEFINED IN SEC TION L94J. EXPLANATION (B) IN THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT EXPRESSION SHALL HAVE TH E SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLN. 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-S.( OF SECTION 9. THAT EXPLN. 2 IN SECTION 9(L)(VII) READS THUS: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, FEES FOR TECHNIC AL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CONSIDERATION ) FOR RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCL UDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLU DE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDE RTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIEN T CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. THIS DEFINITION SHOWS THAT CONSIDERATION PAID FOR T HE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICE, AS ALSO THE CONSI DERATION PAID FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL, WOULD BE REGARDED AS FEES PAID FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE DEFINITION EXCLUDES FROM ITS AMBIT CONSIDERATION PAID FOR CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, OR MINING OR LIKE PROJECT U NDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT, AS ALSO CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. THUS WHILE STATING THAT TECHNICAL SERVICE WOULD INCLUDE MANAGERIAL AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT SET OUT WITH PRECISION AS TO WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE TECHNICAL SERVICE TO REND ER IT TECHNICAL SERVICE. THE MEANING OF THE WORD TECHNICAL AS GIVEN IN THE N EW OXFORD DICTIONARY IS ADJECTIVE 1 OF OR RELATING TO A PARTICULAR SUBJECT, ART OR CRAFT OR ITS TECHNIQUES; TECHNICAL TERMS (ESPECIALLY OF A BOOK OR ARTICLE) R EQUIRING SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE UNDERSTOOD; A TECHNICAL REPORT, 2 OF INVOLVING OR C ONCERNED WITH APPLIED AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCES: AN IMPORTANT TECHNICAL ACHIEVE MENT, 3. RESULTING FROM MECHANICAL FAILURE: A TECHNICAL FAULT, 4. ACCORDING TO A STRICT APPLICATION OR 19 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OR THE RULES: THE ARREST WAS A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE TREATY. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM IS REQUIRED TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS USED, FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES C OULD ONLY BE MEANT TO COVER SUCH THINGS TECHNICAL AS ARE CAPABLE OF BEING PROVIDED B Y WAY OF SERVICE FOR A FEE. THE POPULAR MEANING ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNICAL IS INV OLVING OR CONCERNING APPLIED AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCE. 5. IN THE MODERN DAY WORLD, ALMOST EVERY FACET OF O NES LIFE IS LINKED TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INASMUCH AS NUMEROUS THINGS USED OR RELI ED 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 SCIENT IFIC INVENTION OR DEVELOPMENT AND INVOLVES THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY. ON THAT SCORE, EVER Y PROVIDER OF EVERY INSTRUMENT OR FACILITY USED BY A PERSON CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICE. WHEN A PERSON HIRES A TAXI TO MOVE FROM ONE PLACE T O ANOTHER, HE USES A PRODUCT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VIZ., AN AUTOMOBILE. IT CAN NOT ON THAT GROUND BE SAID THAT THE TAXI DRIVER WHO CONTROLS THE VEHICLE, ARID MONI TORS ITS MOVEMENT IS RENDERING A TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE PERSON WHO USES THE AUTOMO BILE. SIMILARLY, WHEN A PERSON TRAVELS BY TRAIN OR, IN AN AEROPLANE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RAILWAYS OR AIRLINES IS RENDERING A TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE PASSENGER AND, THEREFORE, THE PASSENGER IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMEN TS MADE TO THE RAILWAY OR THE AIRLINE FOR HAVING USED IT FOR TRAVELLING FROM ONE DESTINATION TO ANOTHER. WHEN A PERSON TRAVELS BY BUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE U NDERTAKING WHICH OWNS THE BUS SERVICE IS RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE PASSE NGER AND, THEREFORE, THE PASSENGER MUST DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO TH E BUS SERVICE PROVIDER, FOR HAVING USED THE BUS. THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED TO A CONSUMER CANNOT, ON THE GROUND THAT GENERATORS ARE USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY, T RANSMISSION LINES TO CARRY THE POWER, TRANSFORMERS TO REGULATE THE FLOW OF CURRENT , METERS TO MEASURE THAT CONSUMPTION, BE REGARDED AS AMOUNTING TO PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE CONSUMER RESULTING IN THE CONSUMER HAVING TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT MADE FOR THE, POWER CONSUMED AND REMIT THE SAME TO THE REVENUE. SATELLITE TELEVISION HAS BECOME UBIQUITOUS, AND IS SPREADING ITS AREA AND COVERAGE, AND COVERS MILLIONS OF HOMES. WHEN A PERSON RECEIVES SU CH TRANSMISSION OF TELEVISION SIGNALS THROUGH THE CABLE PROVIDED BY THE CABLE OPE RATOR, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE HOME OWNER WHO HAS SUCH A CABLE CONNECTION IS RECEI VING A TECHNICAL SERVICE FOR WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CABLE OPERATOR. INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SOPHISTICAT ED EQUIPMENTS WITH A VIEW TO EARN INCOME BY ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFI T OF THE USER OF SUCH EQUIPMENT 20 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 DOES NOT RESULT IN THE PROVISION TO TECHNICAL SERVI CE TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR A FEE. 6. 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. THAT FACT THAT THE TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDER HAS INSTALLED SOPHISTICATED TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE EXCHANGE TO ENSURE CONNECTIVITY TO ITS SUBSCRIBER, DOES NOT ON THAT SC ORE, MAKE IT PROVISION OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE SUBSCRIBER. THE SUBSCRIBER IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE COMPLEXITY OF THE EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN THE EXCHAN GE OR THE LOCATION OF THE BASE STATION. ALL THAT HE WANTS IS THE FACILITY OF USING THE TELEPHONE WHEN HE WISHES TO, AND BEING ABLE TO GET CONNECTED TO THE PERSON AT TH E NUMBER TO WHICH HE DESIRES TO BE CONNECTED. WHAT APPLIES TO CELLULAR MOBILE TELEP HONE IS ALSO APPLICABLE IN FIXED TELEPHONE SERVICE. NEITHER SERVICE CAN BE REGARDED AS TECHNICAL SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 7. THE USE OF THE INTERNET AND THE WORLD WIDE WEB I S INCREASING BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS, AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS, OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THAT FACILITY. THE INTERNET IS VERY MUCH A PRODUCT OF TE CHNOLOGY, AND WITHOUT THE SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLED BY THE INTERNET S ERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE USE OF THE TELEPHONE FIXED OR MOBILE THROUGH WHICH THE CON NECTION IS ESTABLISHED, THE SERVICE CANNOT BE PROVIDED. HOWEVER, ON THAT SCORE, EVERY SUBSCRIBER OF THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HAV ING ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR AVAILING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM THE PROVIDER OF THE INTERNET SERVICE, AND SUCH SUBSCRIBER REGARDED AS BEING OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER. 8. AT THE TIME THE IT ACT WAS ENACTED IN THE YEAR 1 961, AS ALSO AT THE TIME WHEN EXPLN. 2 TO SECTION 9(L)(VII) WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 1977, THE PRODUCTS OF TECHNOLOGY HAD NOT BEE N IN SUCH WIDE USE AS THEY ARE TODAY. ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T MUST BE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE REALITIES OF DAY-TO-DAY LIFE IN WHICH THE PRODU CTS OF TECHNOLOGY PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN MAKING LIFE SMOOTHER AND MORE CON VENIENT. SEC. 194J, AS ALSO EXPLN. 2 IN SECTION 9(L)(VIX) OF THE ACT WERE NOT I NTENDED TO COVER THE CHARGES PAID BY THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLDER OR CONSUMER FOR UTILIZIN G THE PRODUCTS OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS, USE OF THE TELEPHONE FIXED OR MOBILE, THE CABLE TV, THE INTERNET, THE AUTOMOBILE, THE RAILWAY, THE AEROPLAN E, CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, ETC., SUCH FACILITIES WHICH WHEN USED BY INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING REGARDED AS TECHNICAL SERVICE CANNOT BECOME S O WHEN USED BY FIRMS AND 21 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 COMPANIES. THE FACILITY REMAINS THE SAME WHOEVER TH E SUBSCRIBER MAY BE INDIVIDUAL, FIRM OR COMPANY. 9. TECHNICAL SERVICE REFERRED IN SECTION 9(1)(VII) CONTEMPLATES RENDERING OF A SERVICE TO THE PAYER OF THE FEE. MERE COLLECTION OF A FEE FOR USE OF A STANDARD FACILITY PROVIDED TO ALL THOSE WILLING TO PAY FOR I T DOES NOT AMOUNT TO THE FEE HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM TECHNICAL SERVICES. THUS HONBLE COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE CASE OF TRANSMISSION OF VOICE HAS EQUATED THE SAME WITH THE TRANSMISSION OF THE ELEC TRICITY AND HELD THAT THE SAME DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PROVIDING THE TECHNICAL SERVICE. PARA 9.5. IN CASE OF PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD. (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THERE MAY BE USE OF SERVICES OF TECHNICALLY QUALIF IED PERSON TO RENDER THE SERVICES BUT THAT ITSELF DO NOT BRING THE AMOUNT PAID AS FE ES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLN, 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VIT). THE A MOUNT PAID ARE TOWARDS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT OF CERTAIN MACHINERY OR FOR CO NVERTING PARTIALLY ORIENTED YARD (POY) INTO TEXTURISED/TWISTED YARN. THE TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF PERSONS IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT O NLY BY USING SUCH TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT IS PAID AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERV ICES. RENDERING SERVICES BY USING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL IS DIFFERENT THAN CHAR GING FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES! IN THE LATER CASE THE TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE MADE A VAILABLE DUE TO WHICH ASSESSEE ACQUIRED CERTAIN RIGHT WHICH CAN BE FURTHER USED. A CCORDINGLY WHERE THE PERSONS RENDERING CERTAIN SERVICES HAS ONLY MAINTAINED MACH INERY OR CONVERTED YARN BUT THAT KNOWLEDGE IS NOT VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE BY W HICH ITSELF IT CAN DO RESEARCH WORK, THE AMOUNT PAID CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. PARA 9.6. AN ANALYSIS OF ABOVE CASES LAYS DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT SECTION 194J WOULD HAVE APPLICATION ONLY WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF A PERSON IS MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS AND NOT WHERE BY USING TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO OTHERS. RENDERING OF SERVI CES BY ALLOWING USE OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAN CHARGING FEES FOR RENDERIN G TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194J WOULD COME INTO EFFEC T ONLY WHEN BY MAKING PAYMENT OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, ASSESSEE ACQ UIRED CERTAIN SKILL/KNOWLEDGE/INTELLECT WHICH CAN BE FURTHER USED BY HIM FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE/RESEARCH. WHERE FACILITY IS PROVIDED BY USE OF MACHINE/ROBOT OR WHERE SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENTS ARE INSTALLED AND OPERATED WITH A VIEW TO EARN INCOME BY ALLOWING THE CUSTOMERS TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT BY U SER OF SUCH EQUIPMENT, THE SAME 22 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 DOES NOT RESULT IN THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVI CE TO THE CUSTOMER FOR A FEE. SIMILAR IS THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN OTHER CASES RELIED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUPRA. J PARA 9.7. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT HUMAN ELEMENT IS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SUCH SERVICE MAKIN G THE PAYMENT OF WHEELING/SLDC CHARGES LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX A T SOURCE AS TECHNICAL SERVICE HAS NO MERIT AS THE TECHNICAL SERVICE IS NOT PROVID ED TO THE PERSONNEL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE ALSO UNABLE TO PURSUE (SIC) OURSEL F WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT OTHER PERS ONS ARE MAKING DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 194C/ L94J/194 H. THE TRIBUNAL THEN IN PARA 9.10 THEREOF WENT ON TO H OLD THAT THE ASSESSEE M/S. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTI ON OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION / SLDC CHARGES TO RAJASTHAN VIDYUT PRA SARAN NIGAM LTD., THE TRANSMISSION COMPANY AS UNDER : 9.10. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN ALTERNATE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION/WHEELING/SLDC CHARGES IS REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST. THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B ARE NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THERE IS NO PAYMENT OF INCOME/REVENUE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE TARIFF IS FIXED BY AN INDEPENDENT REGULATORY BODY I .E., RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION. THE TRANSMISSION COMPANY IS NOT ALLOWED ANY RETURN ON ITS CAPITAL; THE TARIFF IS DE TERMINED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NO PROFIT NO LOSS. FROM THE TARIFF ORD ER (PAPER BOOK 90-93) WE FIND THAT TARIFF IS FIXED, BY ESTIMATING THE ACT UAL COST OF OPERATION OF RVPN. IN CASE, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH TARIFF, ANY SUR PLUS IS LEFT WITH THE RVPN, THEY GIVE CREDIT OF THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AND THE COPY OF THE JOURNAL VOUCHER BY WHICH SUCH CREDIT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE (PAPE R BOOK 136-138). THUS WHEN NO INCOME IS PAID BY ASSESSEE TO TRANSMISSION COMPANY THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DO NOT OTHER WISE ARISE EVEN WHEN UNDER CERTAIN SECTION OF CHAPTER XVII-B LIABILITY O F TDS IS ON PAYMENT OF ANY SUM AND UNDER CERTAIN SECTIONS IT IS ON PAYMENT OF INCOME AS 23 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 ULTIMATELY THE TAX IS ON THE INCOME AND DEDUCTION O F TAX AT SOURCE IS ONLY ONE OF THE MODES OF COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF THE TAX. ON ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT, PROVISION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOU RCE WOULD NOT APPLY AS HELD IN CASE OF DR. WILLRNAR SCHWABE INDIA (F) L TD. (SUPRA) (PAPER BOOK 124-125), HEAD-NOTE OF WHICH READS AS UNDER: AS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITCL, A VEHICLE WAS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE S AID CONSULTANT FOR ATTENDING TO ITS WORK AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y WAS TO BEAR THE VEHICLE EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE SAID PART Y. BILLS FOR SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE SAID CONSULTANT WERE SEPAR ATELY RAISED BY THEM ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ADDITION TO BILLS FOR FE ES PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AND SINCE THE AMOUNT OF BILLS SO RAISED WAS TOWARDS THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM, THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF ANY PROFIT INVOLVED IN THE SAID BILLS. IT WAS THUS A CL EAR CASE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, WAS NOT OF THE NATURE OF PAYMENT C OVERED BY S, 194J, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE THER EFROM. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 715, DT. 8TH AUG., 1995 [(1995) 127 CT R (ST) 131 RELIED UPON BY THE A0 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE ON THIS ISSUE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASES WHERE BILLS ARE RAISED FOR THE GROSS AMOUNT I NCLUSIVE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AS WELL AS REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUA L EXPENSES AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE BILLS WERE RAISED SEPARATELY BY THE CONSULTAN TS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM. AS SUCH, CONSI DERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WERE NOT A PPLICABLE TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM SUCH REIMBURSEM ENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE LOWER A UTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION /SLDC CHARGES TO RVPN. FROM THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE TRIBUNA L DECISION IN THE CASE OF J.V.V.N.L. REPRODUCED (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL T O THE ASSESSEES CASE AND 24 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 THAT THE DECISION THEREIN IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JAIPUR B ENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF JVVNL (SUPRA), UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) T HAT THE ASSESSEE, BESCOM WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS OF TRANS MISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRA CTED THEREON. 6.0 APPLICATION OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT TO TRANSMISS ION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO KPTCL 6.1 THE DEPARTMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS ALS O MADE AN ALTERNATE CLAIM THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 194I ARE ATTRACTED ON THE TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO KPTCL AND TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE THEREON. THE LEARNED D.R. REITERATED THE CL AIM MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LEARNED A.R. ARGUED THAT THIS ALTERNATE CLAIM OF TH E DEPARTMENT WAS NOT TENABLE AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON T HE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ITO (2012) 143 TTJ (MUM) 151 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT TRANSMISSION CHARGES PAID DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194I. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID DECI SION, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRANSMISSION LINES ARE USED NOT ONLY FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELE CTRICITY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO FOR TRANSMISSION TO VARIOUS OTHER ENTITIES, AND THE AS SESSEE HAS NO SAY IN THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH TRANSMISSION LINES CAN BE CONTROLLED OR USED B Y PGCIL ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE OPERATIONS OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES AND ALL TH AT IT GETS FROM THE ARRANGEMENT IS THAT IT CAN DRAW ELECTRICAL POWER FROM PGCILS TRANSMISS ION LINES IN AN AGREED MANNER IN A 25 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 SITUATION IN WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SPECIFIC ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR THE USE OF AN ASSET EVEN IF AN ASSET IS USED IN THE SAID PROCESS. THEREFORE, S. 194I HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY. 6.2 ON CAREFUL APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS AND ISSUES OF THE INSTANT CASE OF BESCOM WITH THAT OF THE CITED CASE OF CHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRI CITY BOARD (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THEY ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND. WE AR E, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUES OF BOTH CASES ARE IDENTICAL AND IN CONS ONANCE HEREWITH HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE (BESCOM) IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON P AYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO KPTCL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I ARE NOT AT TRACTED. THEREFORE, REVENUES ALTERNATE GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6.3 IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS IN ITA NOS.541 TO 545/BANG/2010 AND 256 TO 260/BANG/2011 BOTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 ARE DISMISSED. 7.0 SLDC CHARGES 7.1 IN RESPECT OF SLDC CHARGES, THE APPEALS ARE DIR ECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BESCOM, AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, BANGALO RE DT.29.1.2010 FOR A.YS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 IN ITA NOS.530, 532 AND 534/BANG/2011 FOR N ON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND IN ITA NOS.531, 533 & 535/BANG/2011 FOR LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.201(1A) AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WERE ATTRACTED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THIS ISSUE. THE REASONS FOR THE CIT(A)S FINDIN G HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN PARA 3.7.1 OF THIS ORDER. 26 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 7.2 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE LEVY U/S.201(1) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX IS AS UNDER : 1. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SLDC IS NOT AN ARM OR WING OF KPTCL BUT AN IND EPENDENT BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING EVEN THOUGH THAT P ERSONS MANAGING SLDC ARE DEPUTED FROM KPTCL TO WORK AND IT DOES NOT CONSTITU TE PART OF KPTCL. 3. THE FUNCTIONS DISCHARGED BY THE PERSONNEL IN SLDC EVEN IF IT IS MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MAKE IT RENDERING OF TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT DOES NOT USE / RECEIVE / BENEFIT FROM THE SAID SERVICES IN DISCHARGING THEIR FUNCTIONS. 4. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AMO UNT PAID TO SLDC IS ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE ACTUAL EXPENSES AS PER KARNATA KA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.11.2004 WHICH SPECIFIES THE AMOUNT TO BE P AID TO SLDC. 5. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT KPTC L IS ACCOUNTING THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SLDC CHARGES AS A TRUSTE E AS PER THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE ADOPTED VIDE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD CIRCULAR DT.3.12.2005 AND THE SAME IS NOT ACCOUNTED AS INCOM E BY KPTCL AS PER ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. 6. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE UNLESS SL DC IS A STATUTORY AUTHORITY IT CANNOT HAVE THE POWER TO LEVY PENALTY INCLUDING KPT CL APART FROM VARIOUS ESCOM. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CHAR GES PAID TO SLDC A STATUTORY BODY WHICH ARE PAID AS PER THE DIRECTION OF KERC IS ONLY A STATUTORY LEVY TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201/201(1A) DOES NO T APPLY. 8. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 & 201(1A) APPLIES EVEN AFTER HOLDING THAT THE CHARG ES PAID TO SLDC ARE ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO T ALLOTTED ANY FUND FOR FUNCTIONS OF SLDC. 9. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 & 201(1A) APPLIES TO AMOUNT REIMBURSED IN PROPORTION OF ACTUAL EXPENS ES OF SLDC A STATE GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTED BODY AS PER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003 AS REIMBURSEMENT OF CHARGES DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 201 & 201(1A). 10. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUC ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDER ED. 27 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 8. IN RESPECT OF THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S.201(1A), THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SLDC IS NOT AN ARM OR WING OF KPTCL BUT AN IND EPENDENT BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING EVEN THOUGH THAT P ERSONS MANAGING SLDC ARE DEPUTED FROM KPTCL TO WORK AND IT DOES NOT CONSTITU TE PART OF KPTCL. 3. THE FUNCTIONS DISCHARGED BY THE PERSONNEL IN SLDC EVEN IF IT IS MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MAKE IT RENDERING OF TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT DOES NOT USE / RECEIVE / BENEFIT FROM THE SAID SERVICES IN DISCHARGING THEIR FUNCTIONS. 4. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AMO UNT PAID TO SLDC IS ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE ACTUAL EXPENSES AS PER KARNATA KA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.11.2004 WHICH SPECIFIES THE AMOUNT TO BE P AID TO SLDC. 5. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT KPTC L IS ACCOUNTING THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SLDC CHARGES AS A TRUSTE E AS PER THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE ADOPTED VIDE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD CIRCULAR DT.3.12.2005 AND THE SAME IS NOT ACCOUNTED AS INCOM E BY KPTCL AS PER ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. 6. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE UNLESS SL DC IS A STATUTORY AUTHORITY IT CANNOT HAVE THE POWER TO LEVY PENALTY INCLUDING KPT CL APART FROM VARIOUS ESCOM. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CHAR GES PAID TO SLDC A STATUTORY BODY WHICH ARE PAID AS PER THE DIRECTION OF KERC IS ONLY A STATUTORY LEVY TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201/201(1A) DOES NO T APPLY. 8. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 & 201(1A) APPLIES EVEN AFTER HOLDING THAT THE CHARG ES PAID TO SLDC ARE ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO T ALLOTTED ANY FUND FOR FUNCTIONS OF SLDC. 9. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 & 201(1A) APPLIES TO AMOUNT REIMBURSED IN PROPORTION OF ACTUAL EXPENS ES OF SLDC A STATE GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTED BODY AS PER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003 AS REIMBURSEMENT OF CHARGES DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 201 & 201(1A). 10. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) APPLIES TO AMOUNT REIMBURSED IN PROPORTION OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OF SLDC, A STATE GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTED BODY AS PER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, AND HENCE, CONSEQUENTLY IT DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF 201(1A). 28 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 11. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDU CED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDER ED. 8.1 THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED A.R. WERE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN FORMING THE VIEW THAT SLDC WAS AN ARM/WING OF KPTCL ; THAT EVEN THOUGH PERSONNEL OF SLDC ARE DEPUTED FROM KPTCL, SLDC IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS MANDATED BY THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 . IT IS PLEADED THAT THOUGH THE FUNCTIONS DISCHARGED BY PERSONNEL OF SLDC MAY BE MA NAGERIAL OR TECHNICAL, IN NATURE, THE ASSESSEE I.E. BESCOM DOES NOT IN ANY WAY USE, RECEI VE OR DERIVE BENEFIT FROM THE SAID SERVICE IN DISCHARGING THEIR OWN FUNCTIONS WHICH IS OF DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY OF POWER. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) FAILED TO REALI ZE THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO SLDC IS ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES AS PER THE SPECIFI CATION OF THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION ON 18.11.2004 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROCEDURE ADOPTED FOR ACCOUNTING OF CHARGES BY KPTCLS INCOME. CIRCULAR NO.FA(A&R)/(A/C S)/AAO-11/CYS.56 DT.3.12.2005 AND CIRCULAR NO.FA(A&R)/(A/CS)/AAO-11/CYS.55 DT.28.11.2 005 ISSUED BY KPTCL REGARDING ACCOUNTING TRANSACTION OF SLDC. IT IS SUBMITTED THA T, AS THE CHARGES PAID TO SLDC ARE ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND, ARE PAID AS PER THE DIRECTION OF KERC AS A STATUTORY LEVY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 201 & 201(1A) ARE NOT AT TRACTED. THE LEARNED A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JVVNL (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIAB LE U/S. 194J FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF SLDC CHARGES. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED FOR REVERSING THE DECISION OF 29 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 A.O./CIT(A) AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE SHOULD COVER THE ASSESSEES FAVOURABLY. 8.2 THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE FIN DING OF THE A.O. AND CIT(A) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WERE APPLICABLE TO SLDC CHARGES AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LEVY FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 201(1) AND CHARGING OF IN TEREST U/S.201(1A) WERE IN ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) BE UPHE LD. 8.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. ADMITTEDLY THE SLDC IS A STATUTOR Y BODY CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN PURSUANCE TO THE MANDATE TO THE ELECT RICITY ACT, 2003 AND IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY. THIS CONSTITUTION IS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH SECTION 31(2) THEREOF AND THE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED ARE AS PER SECTIONS 32 AN D 32 VIZ. FOR OPTIMUM SCHEDULING AND DISPATCH OF ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE STATE. W HILE IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD MANY OF ITS PERSONNEL MAY BE, ON DEPUTATION FROM KPTCL A ND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, THEY WORK EXCLUSIVELY FOR SLDC. IT IS SEEN THAT THOUGH THE F UNCTIONS THESE PERSONNEL OF SLDC PERFORM, MAY BE OF MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL NATURE, THE ASSESSEE, BESCOM OR ITS EMPLOYEES DO NOT RECEIVE OR DERIVE ANY BENEFIT IN T HEIR SPHERE OF WORK I.E. DISTRIBUTION AND RETAILING OF ELECTRICITY AND NEITHER DO THEY PE RFORM ANY OF BESCOMS WORK. WHAT IS PAID BY BESCOM AS SLDC CHARGES ARE ONLY REIMBURSEME NT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES AS PER THE DIRECTION IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION ON 18.1 1.2004 AND THE SAME ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED FOR ACCOUNTING OF CHARGE S BY THE KPTCL CIRCULARS DT.3.12.2005 AND 28.11.2005 SLDC CHARGES ARE NOT A CCOUNTED AS KPTCLS INCOME. THE 30 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 VERY SAME QUESTION/ISSUE OF WHETHER ON PAYMENT OF S LDC CHARGES THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO MAKE TDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 194J WAS BEFORE THE JAIPUR TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JVVNL (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBU NAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL HAS COME TO THE FINDING IN PARA 9.10 OF ITS ORDER (REPRODUCED SUPRA) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO S LDC CHARGES PAID AND THEREFORE NO DEDUCTION OF TAX WAS TO BE MADE THEREON. WE FIND T HAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AND COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BY THE DECISION O F THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JVVNL (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE HOLD THAT ON SLDC CH ARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, NO DEDUCTION OF TAX IS TO BE MADE AT SOURCE AS THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE NOT ATTRACTED OR APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED DEMAND RAISED U/S.201(1) R.W.S. 194J AND 201(1A) ARE CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIE F ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSEESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NOS .530 TO 535/BANG/2011 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 6 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 16.03.2012. *REDDY GP 31 ITA NOS.256 TO 260, 530 TO 535/BANG/2011 & 541 TO 548/BANG/2010 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, - A BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE