TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs reassessment of technical service issue with expert assistance to determine human intervention</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Chandigarh Versus The Accounts Officer, M/s Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Chandigarh Versus The Accounts Officer, M/s Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of statutory provisions of Income Tax Act regarding technical service.2. Deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Income Tax Act.3. Liability to pay interest under section 201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act.Interpretation of Statutory Provisions of Income Tax Act Regarding Technical Service:The High Court considered whether the Tribunal misread the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act in relation to the term 'technical service' and the use of the word 'human.' The Court referred to a previous judgment and emphasized the need for expert evidence to determine if human intervention is involved in providing services. It highlighted the importance of technical data and the capacity allocation among service providers in such cases. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue with technical expert assistance, as the presence or absence of human intervention is crucial in determining if a service qualifies as a technical service.Deduction of Tax at Source Under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act:The Court examined whether the payments made by the assessee for transmission, wheeling, and SLDC charges were subject to tax deduction at the source under section 194J of the Income Tax Act. It noted the argument regarding revenue sharing contracts and the contention that such contracts do not attract section 194J. The Court highlighted the need for a reassessment by the Assessing Officer to determine the applicability of section 194J and the nature of the payments made under the revenue sharing contract. The Court emphasized the importance of examining the element of income in the transaction before passing a fresh order.Liability to Pay Interest Under Section 201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act:The Court considered whether the respondent was liable to pay interest under section 201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act due to the absence of tax liability on the income of the deductee. It referred to a previous judgment and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue in light of the observations made by the Apex Court. The Court also instructed the assessing authority to assess the retrospective applicability of Provisos inserted in Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) by the Finance Act, 2012. It highlighted the need for a fresh examination of the matter, including the element of income in the transaction, before making a decision in accordance with the law.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the High Court's considerations and directives regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions, tax deduction at the source, and the liability to pay interest under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
