DCS BPO (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3114/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 June 2015AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to expenses that are 'payable' and outstanding at the balance sheet date, not to expenses already paid. The disallowance should only be for outstanding amounts.

What were the facts?

The assessee incurred internet lease line charges. The Assessing Officer disallowed these charges for non-deduction of TDS, considering them as technical services or royalty. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) applies to paid expenses or only to outstanding liabilities, and whether internet lease line charges constitute technical services or royalty requiring TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ D ” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Ms. K. Hemalatha, C.A यथ क ओर से /
For Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT
Hearing: 17.06.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated 27.10.2014 for the assessment year 2008-2009.

I.T.A.No.3114/Mds/2014. :- 2 -:

2.

The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee raised the following grounds:-

1.

‘’1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred I confirming the order of the Assessing Officer which is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 196 (the ACT) for non deduction of TDS on internet lease line charges amounting to ₹10,75,479/- on the rental advance adjusted against rent amounting to ₹2,15,000/-.

3. Without prejudice to ground No.2 above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia0 of the act without following the jurisdictional ITAT decision “Theekathir Press (ITA No.2076/Mds/2012)’’ that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act applies to expenditure that are remaining ’payable’ as on the balance sheet date and does not apply to expenditure which is’ paid’.

3.

The facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in transcription business. The issue adjudicated relates to disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on internet lease line charges to the tune of �10,75,479/-. The assessee incurred lease line expenditure towards the use of internet to Reliance Communication and Bharati Airtel Ltd. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee should have deducted tax at source, as is required under section 194J, since it was a dedicated leased line provided to the assessee exclusively for the use of the assessee catering to its specific needs and it was not the same as a service provided to the public at large. Further, the Assessing Officer held that even if the payment I.T.A.No.3114/Mds/2014. :- 3 -: made by the assessee may not qualify to be for a technical service, it has to be considered as royalty payments requiring TDS to be done in the light of the decision of ITAT, Delhi, reported in 391 ITR 269.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4.

On appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the decision relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the case and he decided the case against the assessee.

Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. A similar issue is considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal (Vizag) in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the expenses that are “payable” and outstanding at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment year and not to the amount already paid.

6.

The same view was taken by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd in of 2013 dated 09.7.2013 by holding that sec 40(a)(ia) is not I.T.A.No.3114/Mds/2014. :- 4 -: applicable when there is no outstanding balance at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment year and SLP filed by the Revenue in Supreme Court of India in CC No.8068/2014 dated 02.07.2014 is also dismissed. Being so, in our opinion an amount outstanding at the end of the close of the assessment year is not to be allowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer to disallow only that amount which is outstanding at the end of the close of the assessment year. With these observations, we are remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 19th day of June, 2015, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →