| Case ID |
4342557d-8858-4bb1-a869-81db3bb3fff9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL Nos. 1120, 1121, 1129, 1135, 1154, 1155, |
| Decision Date |
Oct 31, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court ruled that the payments made by cellular service providers for interconnection and port access charges to MTNL/BSNL do not qualify as fees for technical services under section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the term 'technical services' must involve a human element, which is absent when services are provided automatically by machines. The ruling clarified that since the interconnection charges are not related to any managerial or consultancy services involving human interactions, they are not subject to tax deduction at source as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the term 'fees for technical services' under section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically in relation to interconnection and port access charges paid by Bharti Cellular Ltd. to MTNL and BSNL. The Delhi High Court held that these payments do not constitute fees for technical services as they do not involve any human interface, which is essential for such classification. The judgment highlights the significance of human involvement in determining whether a service is technical in nature. This case is pivotal for telecommunications companies and impacts how they understand tax obligations concerning interconnection services. The court's decision aligns with previous rulings and reinforces the necessity of a human element in defining technical services, thereby providing clarity and guidance for future interpretations and compliance. Keywords such as 'Income Tax Act', 'technical services', 'tax deduction', and 'telecommunication law' are central to this case, making it a relevant topic for legal discussions and tax compliance strategies in the industry. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
MTNL,
BSNL
|
| Judges |
Badar Durrez Ahmed,
Rajiv Shakdher
|
| Lawyers |
Mrs. Premlata Bansal,
Ms. Rashmi Chopra,
Tarun Sharma,
Kanan Kapur
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Bharti Cellular Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2009 SLD 814,
(2009) 319 ITR 139,
(2008) 175 TAXMAN 573
|
| Other Citations |
Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 / 119 Taxman 496,
J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT [1979] 118 ITR 312/ 1 Taxman 537,
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2005] 2 SCC 515,
Rainbow Steels Ltd. v. CST [1981] 2 SCC 141,
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610,
Stonecraft Enterprises v. CIT [1999] 3 SCC 343
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
194,
9,
260A
|