2020 (3) TMI 1460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana had paid IUS and roaming charges to various international telecom operators during previous years relevant to AYs before us, but, did not deduct TDS u/s 195 of the IT Act and did not remit the TDS to Central Govt. Account on payments made to international telecom operators. Therefore, the AO had issued show cause notices u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) dated 25/11/2016 to the assessee asking it as to why it should not be treated as "an assessee in default". Assessee explained that the payments made by the assessee to international telecom operators do not fall in the category of "fees for technical services" as decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in assessee's own case vide order dated 06/11/2015 in ITA No. 648 to 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....08) 217 CTR 592 Delhi and CIT v Hutchinson Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) as no distinction was made between payments to residents and non-residents in these cases by the courts. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration the amendment brought about in Section 201(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgments in the cases of CIT v U.B. Electronic Instruments Ltd. (2015) 371 ITR 314 (AP) and CIT v Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 77, (2016) 288 CTR 682 (Karnataka) as these were delivered in case of payments to residents. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H....