1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated September 8, 2007, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “G” in I.T.A No. 4560.Del/2003, relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.
2. According to the assessee, it is providing internet access of a certain bandwidth to its subscribers. The main server, on the basis of which the internet services are provided is located in the USA.
3. For the services rendered by the assessee to the subscribers in India, it levies a charge and out of this, some amount is paid to the US party, that is, M/s. Teleglobe International Corporation (for short “Teleglobe”).
4. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the US party. For arriving at this conclusion, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(i) and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was held that the assessee was merely providing internet services to its subscribers and, therefore, there was no question of deduction of tax at source in respect of payments made by the assessee to Teleglobe. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and we find from a perusal of paragraph 10 thereof that the application of section 9(1)(i) of the Act was not pressed by the Departmental representative. The only question that arises, therefore, is about the applicability of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
5. In so far as this is concerned, the Tribunal considered the agreement that had been entered into by the assessee with Teleglobe and came to the conclusion that there was no privity of contract between the customers of the assessee and Teleglobe. In fact the assessee was merely paying for an internet bandwidth to Teleglobe and then selling it to its customers. The use of internet facility may require sophisticated equipment but that does not mean that technical services were rendered by Teleglobe to the assessee. It was a simple case of purchase of internet bandwidth by the assessee from Teleglobe. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there were no technical services provided by Teleglobe to the assessee and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act did not apply.
6. We find that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement between the assessee and Teleglobe and the nature of services provided by Teleglobe to the assessee. It was a simple case of payment for the provision a bandwidth. No technical services were rendered by Teleglobe to the assessee.
7. On a consideration of the material on record, we find that no substantial question arises in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.