Dear All,
i have one bill of TULIP TELECOM regarding internet leaseline connnection of rs 15450 for 3 months ....mine que is shud i deduct TDS on the same...nd if yes under which section....
Sachin More (MBA-Finance Executive - accounts & Finance) (422 Points)
29 December 2012Dear All,
i have one bill of TULIP TELECOM regarding internet leaseline connnection of rs 15450 for 3 months ....mine que is shud i deduct TDS on the same...nd if yes under which section....
Durga Prasad
(Trainee)
(392 Points)
Replied 29 December 2012
Yes, you can deduct TDS under leaseline contract (194C),
But in your case, i don't think that your bill will cross 75000/- per year.
CMA RAVI
(ASSISTANT MANGER - FINANCE)
(478 Points)
Replied 29 December 2012
i dont think tds will be deductible u/s 194c , as the same is kind of service that is being provided and is not covered under the definition as stipulated in sec 194c, hence tds wont be deductible.
CA Gaurav Ajit Potdar
(Chartered Accountant)
(846 Points)
Replied 29 December 2012
No TDS on Internet Facility.
TDS is not deductible on services using technology -- telephone charges, Internet charges, cable TV, leased lines. Payments for use of standard facilities by the public at large in which some form of technical service is inherent are not covered under section 194J. It has also been held in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Deputy CIT[2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad.).
Neha sharma
(-)
(1257 Points)
Replied 30 December 2012
This point has been a matter of discussion over the past few yrs that whether TDS should be deducted on payments made for telephone charges..
CS,CA F,Numrologi TusharSampat
(CS CA F Numerologist Astrologer Graphologist Face reader Vastu Expert)
(85930 Points)
Replied 30 December 2012
Originally posted by : Gaurav A. Potdar | ||
No TDS on Internet Facility. TDS is not deductible on services using technology -- telephone charges, Internet charges, cable TV, leased lines. Payments for use of standard facilities by the public at large in which some form of technical service is inherent are not covered under section 194J. It has also been held in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Deputy CIT[2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad.). |