Call centre services are not technical or managerial services: Bombay HC
Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)-2 Versus
Vodafone Essar Ltd (ITA 1838 of 2018)
Facts:
1. The Revenue was of the view that, agreement entered by the assessee with IGSPT and the other material on record clearly showed that the agreement concerned the assessee’s availing of professional / managerial / technical expertise services. Accordingly, it was submitted that the tax should have been deducted at source under Section 194J, not Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. CIT(Appeals) and ITAT have recorded concurrent findings that the agreement entered into by the assessee with the IGSPT did not involve providing any professional / managerial / technical expertise services to the assessee. The two authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the agreement concerned providing a call centre.
3. The service executives were generally undergraduates or graduates of any stream who would act in a particular manner consistent with the prescribed guidelines when attending to the subscribers’ complaints.
4. The above findings of fact are supported by the terms of the agreement between the assessee and IGSPT and the other material on record, such as the details of the call service executives, their qualifications, and the nature of work they discharged.
Hon Bombay HC held as below:
1. The concurrent findings of fact cannot be said to suffer from perversity either because they are based on no evidence or because they are contrary to the weight of the evidence on record.
2. ITAT has recorded that the service providers to whom the assessee made the payments have already paid the appropriate taxes by way of advance tax / self-assessment tax. Thus, the ITAT has held that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Income-tax has also been substantially complied with by the assessee.
3. Accordingly, we are satisfied that this case does not involve any question of law. Since the involvement of a substantial question of law is an essential pre-requisite, which is absent in the present case, we dismiss this appeal without any costs order.
The Copy Of the order is as under:
display_pdf (4)
