2015 (10) TMI 1590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of disposal of these appeals. Assessee-company is licence holder for providing broad band and internet services. It provides various data internet and premium content value added services under various brand names. Its parent company, 'RCOM', is a telecom service provider. As per the agreement with the parent company assessee was allowed to access the network of RCOM to provide internet connectivity to those subscribers who have subscribed to voice related services of RCOM. Assessee charges the subscribers for providing the aforesaid services and pays certain amount called as 'access charges' to RCOM for use of their network. 3. According to the AO, though the assessee made payments to RCOM, it has not deducted tax at sou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt towards 'fees for technical services' or 'rent' and hence the payment need not be subject to TDS under section 194-J or 194-I of the Act. 6. It deserves to be noticed that by the time the learned CIT(A) passed the order assessee had the benefit of an order passed by the AO under section 154 read with section 201(1) of the Act whereby the AO observed that the deductee company, i.e. RCOM had considered access charges as income in its audited books of account and filed returns of income for the years under consideration. In other words, tax was paid by the recipient and hence in the light of the circular of the CBDT dated 29.01.1997 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the cases. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case we refused to grant adjournment with a direction to the CIT-DR to be ready to present the case on the part of the Department. However, by the time the cases were called upon for hearing the CIT-DR left the court room without informing anybody. She was hardly present in the court for about 30 minutes, i.e. from 10.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. only to seek adjournment in all the cases assigned to her on the ground that though she had got the intimation on Friday itself that she has to appear before 'D' Bench but due to intervening holidays she could not prepare the cases. This cannot be a valid reason for seeking adjournment. The DR is duty bound to prepare the cases and only in ....