TDS on Private Mobile Bills

This query is : Resolved

Sudhir Patil (Querist)
Follow

28 December 2009 Sir,
Today Idea, Airtel, Tata Indicom etc. charged bills with including service tax. In the bill, they have mentioned seperate service tax. Huge amounts of bills paid by various organisations for monthly bills.
My question is why we should not deduct TDS from the bill amount of the private mobile service provider. If any provision in the act to do not deduct the TDS Amount? Mobile service provider is take a special concession regarding TDS. Not any remark mentioned on the telephone bill of the compnay regarding TDS.

Please specify and clear the point.

Three types of openions received. But I am not satisfied for this answer. Because there is no legal support or any lawful base to this answer. Please this query may be resolved any CA expert with circular or notification or act base answer.

Expection from CA.

Aditya Maheshwari

Aditya Maheshwari (Expert)
Follow

28 December 2009 Telephone services are not covered - When a person decides to subscribe to a cellular telephone service in order to have the facility of being able to communicate with others, he does not contract to receive a technical service. What he does agree is to pay for the use of the airtime for which he pays a charge. The fact that the telephone service provider has installed sophistiÂcated technical equipment in the exchange to ensure connectivity to its subscriber does not on that score make it provision of a technical service to the subscriber. The subscriber is not conÂcerned with the complexity of the equipment installed in the exchange, or the location of the base station. All that he wants is the facility of using the telephone when he wishes so, and being able to get connected to the person at the number to which he desires to be connected. What applies to cellular mobile teleÂphone is also applicable to fixed telephone service. Neither service can be regarded as â€˜technical serviceâ€™ for the purpose of section 194J of the Act - Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad.).

You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now

Summarize this with AI

ChatGPT Perplexity Claude Google AI Grok