TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Year (AY) 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since both appeals have common grounds and assessee is same therefore, for the sake of convenience, we would like to dispose of both appeals by way of a common order. In these appeals following Grounds have taken: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the demand raised u/s.201(1)/201(1) of the IT Act on non deduction of TDS of Rs. 9,04,74,072/- (Including interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act) for A.Y. 2011-12 & Rs. 9,90,67,994/- (including interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act) for A.Y. 2012-13 on the discount offered to pre-paid distributors. Inspite of the fact that the provisions of section 194H of the IT Act apply to the assessee. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examine the expert was given by the ld. AO but assessee failed to avail the opportunity of cross examination of the expert in this regard. 3.4 It was observed by the A.O. that the assessee was not deducting TDS u/s.194] (fees for technical services) on the "IUC charges" paid by the assessee company, and treated assessee as "assessee in default" u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. After going through the various appellate stages, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions to the A.O. to take an expert opinion in the matter to determine the human intervention w.r.t. the said payments. The AO took expert opinion in the matter, which was cross examined by the assessee. In this regard, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee has stated that since there is no "Principal-Agent" relationship between the assessee and the distributors, hence the assessee has treated the amount paid to pre paid distributors as "discount" and not as commission. The assessee has mentioned the agreement entered in F.Y.2007-08 between the distributors in this regard, according to which there is "principal- principal" relationship between the two. 3.7 Assessee further stated that since no actual payment has been paid to the distributor, hence, provision of Section 194H are not applicable. 3.8 But ld. AO was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 20,13,87,000/-. 4. Against the said order assessee preferred first statutory appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....educt tax at source on such roaming charges. 9. As regard to applicability of provisions of section 194H of the Act on the discount offered to pre-paid distributors is concerned. Ld. AR stated that arrangement between the appellant and its prepaid distributors was on a 'principal to principal basis', wherein the Appellant sold its prepaid talk time to its distributors, at a discount and the distributors in turn sold the same to the retailers. Retailers thereafter sold the same to the ultimate consumers. Accordingly, it was stated that the assessee accounted for revenues on the basis of the sale proceeds realized i.e. price at which the pre-paid talk time was sold to the distributor. Therefore, the appellant neither booked nor paid any co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve paid for the impugned roaming charges involving human intervention component. This case file reveals that this tribunal's Kolkata bench in ITA No.l864/Kol/2012 Vodafone East Ltd. (assessee's sister concern) vs. ACIT decided on 15.09.2015 examines all fine points in case of identical roaming charges in cellular telephony parlance to conclude that the same are not liable for TDS deduction." 13. With regard to TDS deduction on assessee's pre-paid voucher is concerned. Co-ordinate Bench held as under: "It emerges that the instant issue in assessee's former appeal has been rendered academic since a co-ordinate bench accepted its corresponding ground raised in ITA No.386/Ahd/2011 decided on 07.07,2015 preferred against ....