LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5973/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3838 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINITA MENON

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH , JM ./ ITA NO. 2882 / MUM/201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 201 2 ) DCIT(TDS) - 2 (1), MUMBAI VS. M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., GAGE NO.2, SOUTH BLOCK, SAKI VIHAR ROAD, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400072 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AA CL 1681 P AND ./ ITA NO. 5974&5973 /MUM/201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S :20 1 1 - 12 & 2012 - 13 ) M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., GAGE NO.2, SOUTH BLOCK, SAKI VIHAR ROAD, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400072 VS. DCIT(TDS) - 2(1), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AACL 1681 P /REVENUE BY : MS. VINITA MENON /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 / 1 2 /2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/02 /201 6 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 2012 & 2012 - 2013 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF I.T.ACT, 1961. 2 . AS THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS.2882,5973&5974/14 2 3. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL I.E ITA NO. 2882/MUM/2014(AY:2011 - 2012), PERTAINS TO ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT BANK GUARANTEE CHARGES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSIO N AND NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON SUCH CHARGES PAID TO BANK U/S.194 - H OF THE ACT. 4. R IVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED . T HE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BANK GUARANTEE CHARGES ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIR ED TO DEDUCT TAX IN RESPECT OF BANK GUARANTEE, AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : - 3.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.201(1)/201(1A) AND THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S KO TAK SECURITIES LTD. IN ITA NO.6657/MUM/2011 DATED 03.02.2012 FOR A.Y.2004 - 05 WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT HAS HELD INTER ALIA AS UNDER : - IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BANK ISSUING THE BANK GUARANTEE AND THE ASSES SEE. WHEN BANK ISSUES THE BANK GUARANTEE ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE, ALL IT DOES IS TO ACCEPT THE COMMITMENT OF MAKING PAYMENT OF A SPECIFIED AMOUNT TO, ON DEMAND, THE BENEFICIARY AND IT IS IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS COMMITMENT THE BANK CHARGES A FEES WHICH I S CUSTOMARILY TERMED AS BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION. WHILE IT IS TERMED AS GUARANTEE COMMISSION IT IS NOT THE NATURE OF COMMISSION AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON BUSINESS PARLANCE AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SECTION 194H. THIS TRANSACTION, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIE W, IS NOT A TRANSACTION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SO AS TO ATTRACT THE TAX DEDUCTION REQUIREMENTS U/S.194H. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) INDEED ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDEED UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOU RCE U/S.194H FROM PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS BANKS. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S.194H, THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.201(1A) CANNOT ARISE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMANDS U/S.201(1) AND 201(1A) R.W.S.194H. WE THEREFORE, ALSO SEE NO NEED TO DEAL WITH OTHER PERIPHERAL LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.4 THE FACTS REMAINING THE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, CITED SUPRA, I T IS HELD THAT NO TDS IS PAYABLE ON BANK GUARANTEE CHARGES U/.S194H. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S.194H. HENCE, ,THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S.201(1). THE ADDITION MADE U/S.201( 1) OF RS.11,59,331/ - STANDS DELETED. ITA NOS.2882,5973&5974/14 3 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 I S REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF BANK GUARANTEE CHARGES PAID TO BANK, ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR SUCH NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT . FACTS OF THE INSTANT APPEALS ARE SIMILAR , R ESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DEFAULT FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT S . ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEALS I.E. ITA NO.5974&5973/MUM/14(AY:2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13) , HAS TAKEN COMMON GROUNDS, WHICH PERTAIN TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF AMOUNT PAID FOR MAINTENANCE OF COMPUTER SERVICE U/S.194J. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT SO FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE ON AMC IS CONCERNED , THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.194C OF THE ACT AND THIS IS ALSO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FACETS POLISHING WORKS (P) LTD. VS. ITO(TDS) [69 SOT 361(AHD)], A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, THE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX U/S.194J. 8. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS AS TO WHETHER MAINTENANCE CHARGES IS SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION U/S.194C OR 194J. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX U/S.194C, WHEREAS THE AO HELD THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, THEREFORE, LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S.194J. ITA NOS.2882,5973&5974/14 4 9. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF PACIFIC INTERNET (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 318 ITR (AT) 1 79 (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 19 4J 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 FACI LITIES 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 EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SECTION 9 (1) OF THE ACT. 10 . FROM THE RECORD WE ALSO FOUND THAT IN EARLIER YEARS PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTENANCE OF COMPUTER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO , AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX U/S.194J, IN RESPECT OF INTERNET CHARGES AND COMPUTER MAINTENANCE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED, WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24/02 /201 6 . SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) SD/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 24/02 /201 6 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NOS.2882,5973&5974/14 5 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RE SPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//