With offices all over the nation, the assessee-company (Uber India) was in charge of the Uber BV operation. The company Uber BV, which was founded in the Netherlands, is the rightful proprietor of the Uber App. Taxi services and food delivery services were Uber BV’s primary offerings through Uber India during the pertinent year.
Uber India was responsible for a variety of responsibilities related to transportation services, including the hiring and training of drivers, police verification, collecting payment from passengers for rides, collecting commission, and paying drivers for rides. The Uber App was utilized for the operation.
With the Uber EATS platform at its core, Uber India offers a platform for food delivery services that links and functions as a “Three-sided marketplace,” i.e., a Courier Partner, a Restaurant Owner, and a Customer.
After the Assessing Officer (AO) conducted a TDS verification survey, the assessee was deemed to be in default under section 194C for failing to deduct tax at source (TDS) when paying drivers, restaurant partners, and courier partners.
The case was brought before the Mumbai Tribunal after the CIT(A) overturned the AO’s decision on appeal.
The Tribunal determined that Uber India could not be considered a person responsible for payment for the purposes of Section 194C since the question raised in the current appeal had already been settled by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal.
This is due to the fact that when a rider pays a driver directly in cash, Uber India is not considered the payer. Therefore, if the rider chooses to pay via digital methods, how might the exact same Uber India be handled as a person accountable for payment?
Through its smartphone application, the assessee offered food and taxi delivery services in India during the year under review. A similar model to Uber App is used by the food delivery app Uber EATS. Similar to how Uber App is a platform for ride-sharing, Uber EATS is a platform for aggregating restaurants.
As a result, the appeal was rejected and the decision was made in the assessee’s favor, respectfully adhering to the directives issued by the coordination bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case.
