THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA I.T.A.NO.699/2015 C/W I.T.A.NOs.700/2015, 701/2015, 702/2015, 703/2015, 704/2015, 705/2015, 706/2015

I.T.A.NO.699/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

2 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.699/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.601/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010.

I.T.A.NO.700/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

3 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.700/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.602/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011.

I.T.A.NO.701/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

4 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.701/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.618/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006.

I.T.A.NO.702/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

5 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.702/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.619/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007.

I.T.A.NO.703/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

6 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.703/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.620/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008.

I.T.A.NO.704/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

7 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.704/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.621/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009.

I.T.A.NO.705/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

8 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.705/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.957/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013.

I.T.A.NO.706/2015

BETWEEN :

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

9 AND :

M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., MARUTI INFOTECH CENTRE, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, AMARJYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AABCB 5842L.

... RESPONDENT

ITA NO.706/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.956/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In all these appeals, common questions arise for consideration.

Hence, they are being considered simultaneously.

10 law in holding that the assessee could not have been deemed as one in default for non-deduction of tax at source on roaming charges paid by it to other service providers when the Assessing Authority has rightly held as assessee in default due to no deduction of TDS as required under Section 194H and 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’)?

11 the transaction is in the nature of principal and agent and recorded perverse finding?

12 deducted under Section 194H read with Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

13 “13. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Question before us is whether roaming charges paid by assessee to other service providers for using their services by assessee’s customers could be treated as technical services falling u/s.194J of the Act. We find that similar issue had come up before the Jaipur bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Hexacom Ltd (supra). It was held as under at paras 7 to 12 of the order:

“If the subscriber of Rajasthan Circle goes to Maharashtra when he reaches Maharashtra, the network of Maharashtra catches signals from his mobile and identifies IMSI

14 (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) of the Subscriber. The network of Maharashtra circle shall automatically find out from IMSI of the subscriber as to whether service provider of Maharashtra has a roaming agreement with service providers of Rajasthan circle or not. If yes, they only it shall send signals to service provider of Rajasthan to authenticate the subscriber. If there is no contract between service provider of Maharashtra and Rajasthan, roaming services shall not be allowed to the subscribers. This means that starting points for roaming services is essentially a contract between two services providers. The service providers of Rajasthan circle shall then authenticate the subscriber. The service provider of Rajasthan circle has the data of subscriber which will be sent to Maharashtra circle and date of Rajasthan subscriber shall be stored in the Visitor Location register of Maharashtra circle. This data enables the services provider of Maharashtra to verify various aspects such as whether subscriber enjoys the ISD facilities or not etc. After completing this aspect, the subscriber who has gone to Maharashtra can access than network and make outgoing calls. This process requires various instruments such as MSC (Mobile Switching Centre), VLR (Visitors Location Register), Radio Network, Towers, BTS (Base Transmission Station), BSS(Base Sub Station) etc. Further, all incoming calls shall first go to Rajasthan service provider. The data available with Rajasthan circle shall identify that the subscriber is in Maharashtra and then call shall be diverted to the present location of the subscriber i.e. to Maharashtra.

The ld ITO (TDS) has further observed that the entire process of roaming is thus highly technical and can be executed only if there is a contract between two service providers. The entire system is being operated /managed by highly skilled professionals. A small technical fault can disturb the entire system. Therefore, highly technical persons are constantly monitoring the system. The entire process depends on IMSI which is a unique number comprising of MCC (Mobile Country Code), MNC (Mobile Network Code) allotted by telecom ministry to service providers and MSIN which is SIM numbers. The entire system depends on IMSI which is based on the SIM card issued by the home service provider

15 (Rajasthan Circle in above case) and MNC which is a unique code provided to home service provider by the ministry. Without this the roaming system cannot become operational. This makes it clear that roaming service is a technical service and the technical services are provided by one operator to another and not to the subscriber. Thus roaming service is a highly technical service and therefore while making payments the assessee was required to deduct TDS which it had not done.

The ITO (TDS) gave reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide letter dated 29.01.2009, which has been replied by the assessee vide letter dated 11.02.2009 and 12.02.2009, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page 27 to 30 of the order. The ld ITO (TDS), therefore held as under:-

(1) Roaming is not possible unless an agreement is entered into between the two service providers.

(2) Entire Roaming facility is based on IMSI which consists of MNC (Mobile Network Code a unique code allotted to assessee) and SIM which is also issued by the assessee.

(3) Roaming services is a highly technical service which is possible with the use of equipment such as MSC, VLR, Radio Network, Tower, BTS, BSS and highly advanced technology.

(4) It is a technical arrangement between the two telecom service providers to connect their equipments, network and services to enable their customers to have access of telecom network wherever they move.

(5) All the necessary arrangements are being made by the Home service provider to enable its subscriber to get connected in all other circles. The subscriber need not interact act for any roaming services with other service provider. It is the technology established between two service providers which executes roaming system.

16 (6) The subscriber has to get roaming activated through Home Service Provider. Only then he can access the services of service provider of another circle.

(7) Whenever the subscriber tries to access the network of service provider of other circle, service provider of other circle shall be authorized by the Home Service provider as per the agreement entered into between the two service provides. If there is no roaming agreement between two operators or if the home telecom operator does not authenticate, subscriber cannot enjoy roaming facility.

(8) The subscriber does not require to change the SIM card but by using the SIM card of Home Service provide he can access other network.

(9) As per the agreement the other service provider raises bill on the Home Service provider and only the Home Service Provider is liable to pay the amount irrespective of payment made by subscriber. The subscriber and service provider of other circle are no way liable for any thing with each other.

(10) If the subscriber does use SIM of Home Service provider he cannot access telecom operator of other circle unless he purchases new SIM card. (11) It is clear from the bills raised by telecom operator of other circles that they have changed service tax to assessee and the assessee has paid the same. This simply means that services were provided by one operator to other and not to customers directly. The Service Tax Act has also recognized roaming services as taxable services the Finance Bill, 2007.

(12) The entire system is to be monitored /managed by the highly skilled technical. A small technical problem can disturb the connectivity of entire region. To avoid such eventuality the entire process is being monitored by skilled persons.

(13) This clearly shows that the service provider of another region to whom roaming charges are paid is not providing services directly to ultimate customer but it is providing

17 services to another telecom operator to facilitate its customers.

(14) The provision of section 194J refers to “any sum” paid by the payer and does not distinguish between the payment made by someone on its behalf or its customer’s behalf. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the payment received by the assessee from the customers of the assessee and paid to other mobile company does not fall under TDS provision, is not tenable. From the above, it is clear that Home Service Provider takes technical services of other telecom service provider to facilitate the subscriber to access telephone wherever he visits and therefore it is required to deduct TDS from the payments made to obtain these services.”

The ld. ITO(TDS) considered the following decisions on which the assessee claimed that roaming charges is not covered U/s 194J of the Act.

(i) Skycell Communication Ltd. 251 ITR 53 (Madras) (ii) Bharti Cellular Limited ITA No.1120/2007) (iii) DCIT Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. 20 SOT 248 (Delhi). (iv) ITO Vs. Moving Pictures Company India Ltd. 20 SOT 120 (Delhi). (v) Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 25 SOT 440 (Mum).

The above case laws referred by the assessee were found distinguishable to the ITO (TDS). He further relied on the decision in the case of Canara Bank Vs. ITO 305 ITR (AT) 189 where the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmadabad Bench has distinguished the order of the Skycell Communications Ltd and held that clearing charges paid to SBI through MICR centre by rendering managerial service which falls within the definition of technical services and liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J of the Act. He further considered the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmadabad observation that the definition of fees for technical services is very wide, which covers within its ambit any managerial, technical or consultancy services rendered by a person. The MICR facility provided by the SBI, which identified, read and cleared the cheque through its special

18 kind of machines. Therefore, the same is fees for technical services. The service of this nature, in our opinion involves human skill as well as computerized machines. It is not automatic. In that sense it is no hiring /lasing or making available the technical equipment working on its own. But it is fully supported by services of personnel and requires human application of mind alongwith technical equipments. In the present case, the assessee used highly sophisticated machine, which was managed by the highly qualified technical staff which involves application of human mind. In view of the above finding, he held that roaming charges paid to the other telecom operator is a fee for technical services and liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J of the Act. The ITO (TDS) rejected the assesee’s request to apply the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) as payees has not filed its return of income. Therefore, the benefit of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision cannot be given. Accordingly, he created the demand U/s 201(1) on roaming charges of Rs.10,18,92,350/- and interest thereon U/s 201(1A) of the Act at Rs.68,75,375/-

“3.3.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and contentions/arguments of both the sides and I find that the contention of Ld. A.R. regarding payment made on behalf of the subscriber of the appellant company is not tenable, as the appellant company had entered into a separate agreement with the roaming service provider and is, therefore, liable for payment of roaming charges on its own behalf, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, whether, later on, it charges for roaming services from its customers or not, this fact is not relevant and does not exempt the appellant company from the liability of TDS. Further, I find that the ld. A.O. has correctly held that the roaming facility provided by the other telecom service provider to the Home Service Provider (the appellant) to facilitate the subscribers of the appellant company, to access mobile services, wherever they visit, was a technical service. In this regard, I agree with the

19 reasoning given, for the above finding by the ld. A.O., in para 3.5 of his order. Which is already reproduced in earlier para of this order. Further, it is observed that the ld. AR has again relied on the decision in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd., and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case. However, in this connection, I agree with the detailed observations of the ld.A.O given in para 3.6 of his order (on pages 33 and 34) that the facts of the above two cases are different, as compared to the facts of the present case and hence, the decisions given in those cases are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, I find no merit in the submissions of the ld AR for the reasons discussed in the order of the ld A.O.

The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the ITO(TDS) U/s.194J of the Act but allowed the benefit of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra).

* Visiting network (e.g. Airtel in Mumbai) locates mobile device and identifies that it is not registered with its systems, i.e. VLR. *Visiting Network automatically contacts home network of Hexacom subscriber, i.e. HLR and gets service information about roaming device using IMSI number –IMSI number is a

20 unique subscriber identity number granted to the customer at the time of subscription.

* Visiting network maintains temporary subscriber record for the said mobile device and provides an internal temporary phone number from backend system to the mobile device which is not visible to human.

* Home network also updates its register to indicate that the mobile is on visitor network so that information sent to that device is correctly routed.

* The Hexacom’s subscriber in Mumbai, who is temporarily registered as Airtel’s subscriber makes calls in Mumbai and the minutes are registered in his identity for which he has to pay through Hexacom Jaipur.

* Alternatively, a called from Jaipur makes a call to Hexacom’s subscriber which is routed to the home network of Hexacom subscriber in Jaipur.

* Home network then forwards all incoming calls to the temporary phone number which terminates at the device of roaming, subscriber (in Mumbai) who is now using the services of the visiting network (i.e., Airtel): * The entire process above is automatic and does not involve any human intervention at any stage. Billing process

*Usage of roaming subscriber in visited network is captured in a file called TP, i.e. transferred account procedure for GSM/CIBER, i.e., cellular inter-carrier billing exchange record for.

*Tap file contains details of calls made by subscriber, viz., location, calling party, time of call and duration, etc, *TAP /CIBER files are rated as per tariffs charged by visiting network operator. *such TAP/CIBER file is transferred to home network of subscriber *i.e. to Hexacom).

21 *Home network (i.e. Hexacom) then bills these calls to the Hexacom’s subscriber and pays roaming charges based on the TAP to the visited network operator (i.e. Airtel). The roaming operator charges as per the roaming agreement with Hexacom, whereas the subscriber is billed as per the tariff subscribed.

*The entire process is automatic. It is concluded that the above transaction flow that the service of providing airtime by visiting telecom circle is directly to the subscriber and not to Hexacom. The subscriber of Hexacom uses the network set up by the visiting circle and instead of amount being recovered from the roaming subscriber, the visiting circle sends the air minutes to be recovered from the roaming subscriber to the Home circle for recovery from the subscriber who had visited the visiting circle. Technical fees

* It is an accepted fact that technical service can be said to have been rendered if there is an involvement of human element or there have been use of cerebral faculties in the provision of technical services by the recipient of fee.

* This is so because the word “technical” comes in between the words “managerial and consultancy services”. Based upon the principles of “nositur a sociis” there has to be an element of manual intervention at the time when the service is being rendered.

* Technical services should have a fact situation of imparting technical knowledge involving or concerning applied and industrial science.

The ld AR further argued that finding of the ld CIT(A) are based on contract between two operators but contract has no relevancy on the nature of the service whether technical or otherwise. The ld CIT(A) partly accepted that roaming process is technical because it uses various instruments such as MSC (Mobile Switching Centre), VLR (Visitor Location Register), Radio network, towers, BTC etc, but the system is operated/managed by the Highly skilled professionals. The assessee’s argument was that the roaming service is managed

22 automatically by machines and payment for roaming charges are not fees for technical services. In case of fault in a breakdown of a system, the professional people are required to monitor the telecom network to be in a robust condition in order to do business for self. This monitoring does not have any connection with roaming charges paid by the subscriber. If a telecom network breaks down there is no business and thus no payment. Existence of IMSI is only a facility to communicate and does not result the roaming services provided on a standard facilities to be a technical service. The whole roaming process is automatically and there is no human interference in it. The human interference is required to maintain the robust network only to ensure break down free service to the subscriber. The network owner has to maintain for itself, its network in robust condition. The technical support of the staff is required to maintain the equipment and gazettes but it is not a service for roaming facility provided to the subscriber. There is commercial arrangement to connect the technical networks basically to be able to do business. In fact DOT mandates that it should be so connected. There is no payment made for connecting the networks. Payments are made for calls which the roaming subscriber makes. If no calls are made no payment is made in spite of the fact that the networks are inter connected. He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. 319 ITR 139 (Del) wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that roaming services not involving human interference and is not technical services as contemplated under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and not liable for tax deduction at source U/s 194J of the Act. This view has been earlier held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 53 (Mad) order dated 23.02.2001 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that provisions of Cellular mobile telephone facility to subscribe is not a technical service. Deduction of tax at source need not to be made from subscriptions U/s 194J of the Act. He further relied on the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Limited Vs. DCIT (2009) 123 TTJ 888 (JP Trib) wherein it has been held that Section 194J would have application only when the technology or technical knowledge of person is made

23 available to other and not where by using technical systems, services are rendered to others. Rendering of services by allowing use of technical system is different from charging fees for tendering technical services. The applicability of Section 194J would come into effect only when by making payment of fee for technical services, assessee acquires 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 user of such equipment, the same does not result in the provision of technical service to the customer for a fee. Therefore, he argued that in roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other operators are not fees for technical services. The ld AR further relied on the decision in the case of iGATE Computer Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1301 to 1303 & 1616 /PN/2013 for A.Y.2007-08 to 2010-11 wherein the Hon’ble Pune Bench of ITAT had considered whether any human intervention is required for providing the data link services and are liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J of the Act and held that payments made for utilizing such services was not in the nature of technical services governed by Section 194J of the Act. He further relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Canara Bank Vs. ITO 305 ITR (AT) 189 wherein MICR charges paid to SBI held not to be covered U/s 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) Explanation-2. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (TDS) order dated 16.03.2012 2012(20) ITR (Trib) 265 wherein payment made by State Load Dispatch Center (SLDC) is held not liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J of the Act. The ld AR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. 25 Taxman 164, Siemens limited 30 Taxmano.com 200, ITAT Kalkata Bench Decision in the case of Right Florists Pvt. Limited ITA No.1336/Kol/2011 and ITA Delhi bench decision in the case of Delhi Transco Ltd. (ITA No.755(Del) /2011 A.Y. 2005-06. He also relied on the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. 20 SOT 248 (Delhi). The revenue filed appeal against the

24 order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“ In cases requiring examination by technical experts, the Department ought not to proceed only by the contracts placed before the officers. With the emergence of our country as one of the BRIC countries and with technological advancement, the Department ought to examine technical experts so that the matters could be disposed of expeditiously. Further, this would enable the appellate forum, including the Supreme Court, to decide the legal issues based on the factual foundation. Held accordingly, remanding the matters for determination with technical assistance, that in these cases, in which a cellular provider under an agreement pays interconnect/access/port charges to BSNL/MTNL, the question whether the cellular provider has rendered technical services and has to deduct tax at source, depended on whether the charges were for technical services, and this involved determination of whether any human intervention was involved, which could not be determined without technical assistance.

Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 139 set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions.”

After this decision, the ld Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s.Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts reexamined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that roaming services does not require any human intervention, it operates automatically. The ld AR also drawn our attention on independent opinion taken from Director CMAI, ExDirector (C&M), BSNL, Ex-Member Telecom Commission on 24.12.2010 and admitted that whole interconnected uses process, no manual intervention is required. He further drawn our attention on page No.651 to 652 for postpaid as well as prepaid roaming charges charged between the operators from Mr.Kapoor Singh Guliani. The appellant also

25 taken opinion from Former Chief Justice of India Mr.Kapadia on IUC post technical examination, cross examined and reexamination. Who also opined that Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated 12.08.2010 is an order not judgment as the principle of law was not res-integra. The word technical services have got to be read in narrow since as held by the various Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunal by applying principles of “Nositur a sociis” particular because the word technical service in Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation -2 in between word managerial consultancy services. Finally he opined that such setting up/installation, repairing, servicing, maintenance are separate activities, they are back office functions and are require human intervention. But the roaming process between participating entities is fully automatic and does not require any human intervention. Accordingly, the interconnected uses charge will not attract the provisions of Section 194J read with Section 9(1) (vii) read with Explanation-2 thereto. Therefore, he prayed to delete the addition.

26 Coordinate Bench also considered the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. in the case of i- GATE Computer System Ltd. and held that Data Link transfer does not require any human intervention and charges received or paid on account of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC Charges to various operators at Rs.10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT (A) and assessee’s appeal is allowed on this ground also.

27 consequential ground. We have already held that assessee is not at default for deduction of tax on roaming charges and interest levied on the assessee on such amount u/s.201(1A) of the Act, stands deleted. However, in so far as interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act in relation to discounts/commission on prepaid sim cards and talk time is concerned, we have remitted the issue back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd (supra). AO is directed to revise the levy of interest accordingly. Ground 4 of the assess is partly allowed for statistical purposes.”

29 Company from another mobile service provider Company, is an aspect which may require further examination of the evidence and therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Further, in the impugned order of the Tribunal, after considering the above referred decision of Bharti Cellular Limited, the Tribunal has further not only considered the opinion, but found that as per the said opinion the roaming process between participating entities is fully automatic and does not require any human intervention. Therefore, we do not find that the aforesaid decision in the case of Bharti Cellular Limited, would be of any help to the appellants - Revenue.

30 provided, then it can be said as a “technical services”. Therefore, he submitted that in the present case, roaming services to be provided to a particular mobile subscriber by a mobile Company is a customize based service and therefore, distinguishable and separately identifiable and hence, it can be termed as “technical services”.

31 termed as “technical services” or not, is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal, after considering all the material produced before it, has found that roaming process between participating entities is fully automatic and does not require any human intervention. Coupled with the aspect that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court for taking support of its view.

32 14. In view of the above, we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

sma/nd/