Appellant not liable for TDS on payments for technical services without human intervention

The ITAT Jaipur Bench held that the payments made by the appellant for the use of standard facility and roaming charges did not qualify as 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J. As there was no human intervention involved in providing the services, the appellant was not liable for TDS under section 194J and interest thereon. The appellant's appeals were allowed, and the orders of the learned CIT(A) were upheld based on the precedents established in previous cases.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the payment made for the use of standard facility amounts to 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and is tax deductible under section 194JRs.
- Whether the appellant is an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) of the Act for not deducting tax under section 194J and thereby liable for interest under section 201(1A)Rs.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer regarding the payment made for the use of standard facility. The appellant contended that the issue is covered by a previous ITAT Jaipur Bench decision in a similar case. The Hon'ble ITAT considered various factors, including the nature of services provided, the requirement of human intervention, and judicial precedents. It was established that the mere interconnection between operators did not necessitate human intervention, and the charges paid were not fees for technical services under Section 194J. The appellant's appeal was allowed based on this analysis.

2. The issue of levy of TDS under section 194J on roaming charges paid by telecom operators was thoroughly examined by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in a previous case. The Bench concluded that as there was no human intervention in providing the services, the roaming charges did not constitute a fee for technical services under Section 194J. Consequently, the appellant was not liable for TDS under section 194J, interest thereon, and was not considered an assessee in default. The orders of the learned CIT(A) were upheld based on the findings of the previous judgment.

In conclusion, the ITAT Jaipur Bench's analysis in previous cases established that certain payments made by the appellant did not fall within the ambit of 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J. The judgments considered various aspects, including the necessity of human intervention, to determine the applicability of tax deduction at source. The appellant's appeals were allowed, and the orders of the learned CIT(A) were upheld based on these precedents.

---