TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds internet charges. Facts giving rise to ground are that the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made the payment of Rs. 3,13,569/- for using internet and lease line services on which TDS was not deducted as the internet services constitute the technical services as per definition of technical services u/s 9(1)(VII) of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs. 67,271/- on account of non-deduction of TDS and interest thereon. Being aggrieved the assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 3. Before us, nobody represented the assessee, therefore, the assessee is proceeded on the basis of material available on record. On the oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made on payments made towards internet and communication charges. 3. On the other hand, the ld.DR did not controvert the same by brining on record contrary to the said order of the ITAT, Mumbai. He relied on the orders of the AO and CIT-A. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused material on record including the paper book details and case laws. We find that the AO ITA No. 433/Kol/2016 on going through the details as submitted by the assessee found that the assessee made payments of Rs. 69,43,089/- under the head Leaseline charges to various parties like BSNL,MTNL, Tata Indicom, System Shyam Teleservices Ltd, Bharti Airtel etc. The AO raised an objection for non deduction of TDS on such payments u/s. 194C and 194J of the Act. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ITAT Mumbai are similar with that of the case in hand. For better understanding, ITA No. 433/Kol/2016 we may refer to the para 11 of the order dt. 21-06-2017 of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of supra, which is reproduced herein below:- "11. We have heard the Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material produced before us. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue involved in the present case and find substantial force in the contentions raised by the ld. A.R before us. We find that the internet and communication charges are not liable for deduction of any tax at source, as the same are merely in the nature of payments which cannot be characterized as having bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mer is special and exclusive to the seeker of the service, the latter, even if termed as a service, is available to all and would therefore stand out in distinction to the former. The service provided by the Stock Exchange for which transaction charges are paid fails to satisfy the aforesaid test of specialized, exclusive and individual requirement of the user or consumer who may approach the service provider for such assistance/service. It is only service of the above kind that, according to us, should come within the ambit of the expression "technical services" appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the services rendered by the Stock Exchange and each and every member has to necessarily avail of such services in the normal course of trading in securities in the Stock Exchange. Such services, therefore, would undoubtedly be appropriate to be termed as facilities provided by the Stock Exchange on payment P a g e | 12 and does not amount to "technical services" provided by the Stock Exchange, not being services specifically sought for by the user or the consumer. It is the aforesaid latter feature of a service rendered which is the essential hallmark of the expression "technical services" as appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High court th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p but failed to collect TCS u/s 206(C) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the demand of Rs. Rs. 14,565/- and Rs. 12,907/- on account of noncollection of TCS and interest thereon. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 8. Before us, nobody represented the assessee, therefore, the assessee is proceeded on the basis of material available on record. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. The ld. CIT(A) decided the issue as under: "The appellant failed to prove his case that, why he was not liable to col....