Payment aggregator whether he is the person liable to withhold Tax as person liable to pay?

Facts:

Uber India was rendering payment aggregator and marketing services for Uber BV Netherlands who owned the Uber application. Using the Uber application drivers and restaurants enter into a contract with Uber BV and payments to the drivers and the restaurants for Uber Eats were paid either directly by the customer or through Uber India as a payment collector. It was the case of the AO that Uber India was liable to withhold TDS for the payments made by the customers to Uber India routed thru their App and in turn paid to the drivers and restaurants as a payment aggregator. On appeal the CIT(A) negated the views of the AO holding that Uber India can never be the payer or the person liable to pay as the responsibility was of the end customer factually. On higher appeal by the revenue -

Held against the revenue that Uber India could not be held as an assessee in default as they were not the person liable to pay as per section 204.

Ed. Note: The appeal has a fine print in it that Uber BV was not paying equalization levy either under section 165A as alleged by the revenue to be noted. The issue is vexed as it is impossible for the aggregator to enter into contracts with the drivers and with the restaurants as that invariably is the work/purpose of Uber BV or the App. Whether the amendment vide Finance act, 2020 in section 204(v) "defining a person responsible for paying" will also include an agent of a non-resident under section 163 as well how far can it circumference Uber India in the coming assessment years needs to be seen. 

Case: Dy. CIT v. Uber India Systems (P.) Ltd. 2023 TaxPub(DT) 2462 (Mum-Trib)