The Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Pune  v. Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 
[Citation -2017-LL-0801-10]

Citation 2017-LL-0801-10
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Pune 
Respondent Name Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/08/2017
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags fees for technical services • technical support • question of law • professional service
Bot Summary: The learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not properly considered the said aspect and has arrived at erroneous conclusion. The learned Counsel for the respondent supports the judgment. It has been observed by the Tribunal that M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. is merely assisting the assessee in sending SMS messages to its customers. The preamble of the agreement between the assessee and M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. itself describes that M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. is a company engaged in providing mobile messaging solutions to carry data over mobile network using its mobility platform. There is no technical or professional services, which can be said to have been offered by Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 09:56:54 ::: 170-15-itxa-901-c.doc M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. The judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Director of Income Tax V/s. A.P Moller Maersk A/S reported in 392 ITR 186 and. Another judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 1 has considered that such a service and charges paid, as not fees for technical services and no liability of direct tax of such liability arises. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law arises.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Pune .. Appellant v/s. Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for appellant Ms. Vasanti B. Patel for respondent CORAM : S.V . GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, J.J. DATED : 1st AUGUST, 2017 P.C. 1. These appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2007 08 and 2008 09. 2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal was not justified in law to hold that provisions of Section 194J is not applicable in respect of payments made to M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. for providing SMS services as well as technical support services, more particularly, when Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 09:56:54 ::: 170-15-itxa-901-c=.doc service agreement between assessee and M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. provided for imparting training to technical team designated by assessee and further M/s. Valuefirst was entrusted with responsibility to ensure that SMS service works in accordance with agreed functionality / description and conforms to stated service level agreement. learned Counsel submits that Tribunal has not properly considered said aspect and has arrived at erroneous conclusion. 3. learned Counsel for respondent supports judgment. 4. It has been observed by Tribunal that M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. is merely assisting assessee in sending SMS messages to its customers. preamble of agreement between assessee and M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. itself describes that M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. is company engaged in providing mobile messaging solutions to carry data over mobile network using its mobility platform. There is no technical or professional services, which can be said to have been offered by Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 09:56:54 ::: 170-15-itxa-901-c=.doc M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. judgment of Apex Court in case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) V/s. A.P Moller Maersk A/S reported in (2017) 392 ITR 186 and . another judgment of Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in (2016) 383 ITR 1 has considered that such service and charges paid, as not fees for technical services and no liability of direct tax of such liability arises. 5. In light of above, no substantial question of law arises. appeals are dismissed. No costs. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 09:56:54 ::: TheCommissionerofIncome-tax(TDS), Pune v. BajajAllianzeLifeInsuranceCo.Ltd.
Report Error