Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether payments made for Google AdWords advertising were chargeable to tax deduction at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as advertising charges, or under section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as fees for technical services, and whether the assessee could be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and section 201(1A).
Analysis: The payment was held to be for use of an automated online advertising platform for placement of advertisements, with no material evidence of managerial, technical or consultancy services rendered to the assessee and no proved human intervention in the service availed. Advertising is a specific subject covered by section 194C, and a specific provision prevails over a general one. The later reduction of the TDS rate under section 194J was also treated as reinforcing the legislative intent to reduce litigation in cases where the dispute is whether the payment falls under section 194C or section 194J.
Conclusion: The payment fell under section 194C and not section 194J. The assessee had correctly deducted tax at source at 2%, and the order treating the assessee as in default for short deduction of tax and charging interest was not sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Payments for automated digital advertising space, without proved human intervention or transfer of technical knowledge to the payer, are classifiable as advertising contracts under section 194C rather than fees for technical services under section 194J.