2024 (8) TMI 555 - HC - Income Tax

Roaming charges paid to telecom operators constitute fees for technical services under section 194J requiring TDS deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Versus M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Versus M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether roaming charges paid by the assessee to other telecom operators constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, thereby mandating the deduction of tax at source.2. Whether human intervention in the provision of roaming services is necessary to classify the payment as fees for technical services.3. The impact of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the tax liability and the ongoing legal proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Roaming Charges as Fees for Technical Services:The primary issue was whether the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other telecom operators should be classified as 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, which would necessitate the deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal initially held that roaming services did not require human intervention for connecting calls and thus did not qualify as technical services. However, the High Court found that human intervention and technical expertise were integral to the operation of roaming services. The Court emphasized that the seamless operation of roaming services required continuous human monitoring, coordination, troubleshooting, and expertise, thereby classifying the roaming charges as fees for technical services under Section 194J.2. Human Intervention in Roaming Services:The Tribunal had concluded that human intervention was not required for connecting roaming calls once the initial configurations were completed. However, the High Court disagreed, highlighting that human intervention was necessary at various stages, including initial physical connectivity, system configurations, and troubleshooting. The Court noted specific instances where human intervention was indispensable, such as manually selecting a network when the service provider does not cover a particular area and activating international roaming. Thus, the Court concluded that human intervention was an integral part of providing roaming services, making the charges paid for these services fees for technical services.3. Impact of CIRP on Tax Liability:The respondent argued that the CIRP and the approval of the resolution plan rendered the tax case appeals infructuous. However, the High Court rejected this contention, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Rainbow Papers Limited case, which held that statutory dues could not be ignored and must be addressed in the resolution plan. The Court emphasized that the statutory tax liability and the obligation to deduct tax at source under the Income Tax Act remained unaffected by the CIRP. The Court also noted that the resolution plan was approved after the Tribunal's order, and the substantial question of law regarding the classification of roaming charges could not be left undecided.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other telecom operators constituted fees for technical services under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, necessitating the deduction of tax at source. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing it to consider the extent of human intervention and other relevant factors comprehensively. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal was instructed to re-examine the issue in light of the High Court's findings.