9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Mangal; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. Appellant by: Shri Sangram Gaikwad Respondent by: Shri Vijay Mehta ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11 is directed against an order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dated 08/05/2014, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 19/03/2012. ITA No. 4884/MUM/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) 2. In this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges to BSNL amounts to 'fee for technical services' and hence, covered under section 194J of the Act. The aforesaid stand of the Assessing Officer was not approved by the CIT(Appeals) following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT, 251 ITR 53(Mad). For the said reason, Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the respondent assessee, at the outset, pointed out that in the assessee's own case for the same ITA No. 4884/MUM/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) year with another TAN particulars, similar decision of the CIT(Appeals) has been accepted by the Revenue as no appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Ld. Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 194J of ITA No. 4884/MUM/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) the Act, as it is a payment for obtaining a standard facility and not for technical services. Thus, on this aspect Revenue has to fail. 6. In Grounds of appeal No.3, the case set up by the Revenue is that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that bank guarantee charges paid to the bank are not liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act. 6.1 On this aspect of the controversy, it was a common point between the parties, that the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, 147 TTJ 443(Mum) has held that bank guarantee charges are not liable for deduction of tax under section 194H on the ground that such transactions are on princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
