HCL Infotel Ltd. v. ITO

99 TTJ 440Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#9947 most cited

What is HCL Infotel Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Payments for bandwidth and last-mile connectivity services do not constitute fees for technical services under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, tax is not required to be deducted at source.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

HCL Infotel Ltd. v. ITO · 99 TTJ 440 · Section 194J · Section 9(1)(vii) · Fees for Technical Services · FTS · bandwidth charges · last mile charges · telecom connectivity · tax deduction at source

Judgments citing HCL Infotel Ltd. v. ITO

Idea Cellular Limited (As Successor to Spice Communications Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, Circle- 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3425/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 40a

…not be FTS. 4.2. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd vs DCIT reported in 251 ITR 53; decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of HFCL Infotel Ltd vs. ITO reported in 99 TTJ 440; decision of Delhi 60 M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd.,(As successor to Spice Communications Ltd.) Tribunal in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd (which is a successor to the assessee pursuant to a scheme of merger w.e.f. 01/02/2010) and in Escotel Mobile Communications Ltd. ITA No.2154 to 2156/Del/2005; decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of CIT vs…

M/S. Arihant Cheritable Trust, Indore vs. The ITO (TDS)-1, Indore

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…customer for a fee. Similar is the proposition laid down in other cases relied by the learned Authorised Representative supra.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.8.3] The Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ in the case of HFCL Infotel Limited v. ITO as reported in [2006] 99 TTJ 440 (Chandigarh) has held that: “9. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities and the decisions referred by the parties. We are of the opinion that the interconnect charges paid by the assessee to BSNL cannot be treated as technical services as provided under s. 194J. The assessee- company is paying intercon…

M/S at & T Global Betwork Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

…h net work infrastructure cannot be said to technical services within 38 the meaning of Section 194J of the Act, read with Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act Wlpro Ltd. Vs ITO 80 TTJ 191 (Bangalore Tribunal); HPCL Infote! Limited vs ITO 99 TTJ 440 (Chandigarh Tribunal); Idea Cellular Limited vs CIT 313ITR 55 (Delhi Tribunal), It is thus clear that bandwidth charges end last mile charges, being charges paid by AT&T GNS to other telecom operators for provision of telecom connectivity services, do not qualify as FTS for the purposes of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction at so…

DCIT (TDS) 1(3), Mumbai vs. Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3470/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 3470/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Respondent: Ms.Hiral Shah
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…as not justified. Identical is the situation for Cargo handling charges. So far as, fee for technical services is concerned, it has been clarified in Merchan Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 9 5 3470/Mum/2015 taxman.com 17 (Mum.) and HCL Infotel Ld. vs ITO 99 TTJ 440 (Chandigarh) in which the decision from Hon’ble Madras High Court was relied upon. The stand of the Revenue is that these payments represents fee for technical services, requiring deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Act. The assessee further find support from the decision in Skycell Communications Ltd. vs DCIT and HCL Infotel Ltd. vs ITO (supra), thu…

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3803/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Neha BarveFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 3Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM, AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.3803/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Lintas India Pvt. Ltd. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), बिधम/ Phoenix House, B Wing, 3rd Floor, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Vs. Pin:400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACL0124f (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे / Appellant by : Smt. Neha Barve प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. Rajesh Ojha सुनवाईकीतारीख / : 20/10/2016 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18/01/2017 Date of Pronouncement आदे…

ITO TDS 1(2), Mumbai vs. Chinubhai Kalidas & Bros, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5459/MUM/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dilip DamleFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…n coming to such a decision, CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT, 251 ITR 53 as also the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of HCL Infotel Ltd. vs. ITO (99 TTJ 440). Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. After considering the rival stands on this issue, in our view, the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. (supra) clearly covers the controversy against the Revenue. In the case before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it…

ITO TDS 1(2), Mumbai vs. Chinubhai Kalidas & Bros, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1515/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dilip DamleFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…n coming to such a decision, CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT, 251 ITR 53 as also the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of HCL Infotel Ltd. vs. ITO (99 TTJ 440). Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. After considering the rival stands on this issue, in our view, the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. (supra) clearly covers the controversy against the Revenue. In the case before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it…

ITO TDS 1(2), Mumbai vs. Chinubhai Kalidas & Bros, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1514/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dilip DamleFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…n coming to such a decision, CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT, 251 ITR 53 as also the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of HCL Infotel Ltd. vs. ITO (99 TTJ 440). Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. After considering the rival stands on this issue, in our view, the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. (supra) clearly covers the controversy against the Revenue. In the case before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it…

ITO TDS 1(2), Mumbai vs. Chinubhai Kalidas & Bros, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1513/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dilip DamleFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…n coming to such a decision, CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT, 251 ITR 53 as also the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of HCL Infotel Ltd. vs. ITO (99 TTJ 440). Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. After considering the rival stands on this issue, in our view, the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. (supra) clearly covers the controversy against the Revenue. In the case before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it…

Lintas India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3504/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Hon’ble Madras High Court in Skycell Communications Ltd. and Another Vs. DCIT and others (2011) 251 ITR has considered the provisions of section 9(1)(vii). Similarly, ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of HFCL Infotel Limited Vs. ITO MANU/IG/5036/2005: (2006) 99 TTJ 440, referred to the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. Further, ITAT Mumbai bench in Pacific Internet (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO MANU/WB/0620/2008 : (2009) 318 ITR 179 (AT) has relied upon the observations rendered in Estel Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and Skycell Communications Ltd(supra) and held that paymen…

ITO (TDS) RG 2, Mumbai vs. Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4856/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year- 2009-10

Section 133ASection 14ASection 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…sessing Officer was not justified. Identical is the situation for Cargo handling charges. So far as, fee for technical services is concerned, it has been clarified in Merchan Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 9 taxman.com 17 (Mum.) and HCL Infotel Ld. vs ITO 99 TTJ 440 (Chandigarh) in which the decision from Hon’ble Madras High Court was relied upon. The stand of the Revenue is that these payments represents fee for technical services, requiring deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Act. The assessee further find support from 6 M/s Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 4856 to 4858 &4950/Mum/2013 the de…

HCL Infotel Ltd. v. ITO (99 TTJ 440) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax