9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act issued beyond the period of four years deserves to be quashed, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT(TDS) Vs Anagram Wellington Assets Management Company Ltd. 389 ITR 654 (2016) (Guj) without appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court pertains to the resident assessee and for the default committed u/s 194I of the Act rendering the judgment obiter dictum in the case of the assessee under consideration. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the statute defines period of limitation for passing of order u/s 201 or 201(1A) of the Act with respect to payments to resident assessee whereas the assessee has made payments to a non-resident. The Ld CIT(A) also fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Allscripts US, the ultimate holding company which was non-resident in India and had entered into an agreement for third party services provider for providing end-to-end MPLS network facility (lease line connectivity) to connect development centre offices of the assessee with the offices of Allscripts US to access standard communication line for private and highly secure information and said third party vendor provided the same standard services to its other customers across the globe. The AO pass order under Section 201 / 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby making addition of Rs. 55,72,072/- as shortfall of TDS amount on Data Line Charges at 20%. The AO further calculated interest under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) at 1% on Rs. 55,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and third party vendor. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payment was made to a non-resident for providing Data Line Charges which is FTS in nature. Mere change in the mode of payment would not change the character of income in the hands of the assessee and the same is required to be determined on the basis of transaction per se and the mode of payment would not make any difference as far as the taxability is concerned. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the notice for non-deduction of TDS was issued after four years from the end of relevant assessment year, thus, the order under Section 201 / 201(1A) is time barred. Section 201(3) did not specify that the limitation will not be applicable to payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer was not properly taken into account by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is delay of 324 days on part of Revenue in filing present appeal which was properly explained by the Revenue through letter dated 22.12.2021. Hence, we are condoning the delay. It is pertinent to note that Section 201(3) specifies the time limit in respect of TDS for residents only. The CIT(A) observed that the order dated 25.03.2019 is beyond four years in light of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (Supra). The decision of Jurisdictional High Court referred by the CIT(A) is opt in present case as regards to limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
