TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o M/s. BSNL and M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. towards 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and referred to para 11 of said order and argued that no TDS is required to 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Kotak Securities Ltd reported in (2016) 383 ITR 1(SC). We find that the facts in the case of supra of 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provider. It is the above feature that would distinguish/identify a service provided from a facility offered. While the former 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or the special needs of such member(s) in the conduct of business in the Stock Exchange. In other words, there is no exclusivity to 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 Exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rise to ground of appeal are that a survey u/s 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee and it was found that the assessee made the sale of scrap 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 an....