TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is engaged in the business of providing telecom service. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th September 2009, declaring business loss of Rs. 69,63,73,861. That besides, the assessee offered long term capital gain of Rs. 34,33,31,420 and long term capital gain of Rs. 3,09,071. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31st December 2011, determining the income at Rs. 11,47,96,590. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer on verifying the details available on record having found that the assessee had not deducted tax at source on payment made towards inter-co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of depreciation, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether such disallowance had already been made in rectification order date 20th March 2013, passed under section 154 of the Act and if it has already been made, not to make any further disallowance. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the assessee appeared and filed written submission. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, re-opening of assessment having been made in the absence of any tangible material and without application of mind and on a mere change of opinion, is invalid. 5. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in Para-3.2 of his order. 6. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d disallowance of Rs. 7,28,19,366 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. As discussed in the earlier part of this order, in the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer having found that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on inter-connect and access cost of 7,28,19,366, called upon the assessee to explain why the payment so made should not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed disallowance, however, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(ia). 9. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the disallowance while deciding the issue in appeal filed by the assessee. 10. The assessee through its wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of inter-connect usage charges. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer while raising such demands in the aforesaid assessment years was, the payment made by the assessee towards inter-connect usage charges are in the nature of fees for technical service, hence, will attract the provisions of section 194J of the Act. However, while deciding assessee's appeal on the disputed issue, the Tribunal in the order referred to above held that inter-connect usage charges are not in the nature of fees for technical services, hence, the provisions of section 194J would not be applicable. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case there is no obligation / liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source on paym....