GROUP M MEDIA INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

CO 17/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1322 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B D NAIK
• Section: 133A; 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. : 7055 /MUM/20 1 2 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 1 1 ) DY COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 1(1) , ROOM NO. 804, K G MITTAL HOSPITAL BLDG, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 002 VS GROUP M MEDIA INDIA PVT LTD. , COMMERZ, 8 TH FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, OBERIO GARDEN CITY, OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMB AI - 400 063 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B D NAIK RESPONDENT BY : NONE CROSS OBJECTION 17/MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. : 7055/MUM/2012 , AY 2010 - 11 GROUP M MEDIA INDIA PVT LTD. , GORE GAON(EAST), MUMBAI - 400 063 .: PAN: AA C C M 7365 H VS DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 1(1) , MUMBAI - 400 063 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTOR APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B D NAIK ITA NO. : 7056 /MUM/20 12 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 1(1) , ROOM NO. 804, K G MITTAL HOSPITAL BLDG, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 002 VS GROUP M MEDIA INDIA PVT LTD. , COMMERZ, 8 TH FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK , OBERIO GARDEN CITY, OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 063 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B D NAIK RESPONDENT BY : NONE CROSS OBJECTION 18/MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. : 7056/MUM/2012 , AY 2011 - 12 GROUP M MEDIA INDIA PVT LTD. , GORE GAON(EAST), MUMBAI - 400 063 .: PAN: AA C C M 7365 H VS DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 1(1) , MUMBAI - 400 063 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTOR APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B D NAIK GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 2 /DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 - 08 - 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 0 9 - 201 5 ORDER , . . : PER AMIT SHUKLA, J M : THE AFORESAID APPEAL S HA VE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION S BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE IMPUGNED ORDER S OF EVEN DATE , 27 .0 8 .201 2 , PASSED BY CIT(A) - 1 4 MUMBAI , IN RELATION TO ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE CO MMON EXCEPT FOR VARIATION IN FIGURES , HENCE, THE SAID APPEALS AND COS WE RE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY . THE RELEVANT GROUND AS RAISED IN AY 2010 - 11 READS AS UNDER : - (I) THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY IGNORING THE AMENDED DEFINITION OF RENT W.E.F. 13.07.2006 AS PER SECTION 194I AND BY HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADVERTISEMENT FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C AND NOT SECTION 194I. (II) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 201(1) AND SECTION 201(1A) BY RELYING UPON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 08.08.1995 AND CIRCULAR NO. 714 DATED 03.08.1995 AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE SET OF FACTS IN TOTALITY READ WI TH THE AMENDED DEFINITION OF RENT U/S 194I. (III) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY TREATING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE AS ADVERTISEMENT ON HOARDINGS FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF RENTAL INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194I OF THE I.T. ACT) BY RELYI8ING ON THE DECISION OF M/S ROSHAN PUBLICITY P LTD. (2005) 4 SOT 105 DATED GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 3 13/05/2005, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE DEFINITION OF RENT U/S 194I HAS BEEN WIDENED W.E.F. 13/07/2006 AND AS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SAYS THAT ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING ANY PAYMENT UNDER ANY OTHER AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT FOR THE USE OF (EITHER SEPARATELY OF TOGETHER ANY) A) LAND OR B) BUILDING H) FITTINGS WHETHER OR NOT ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE OWNED BY TH E PAYEE. (IV) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY IN DELETING THE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) ON THE ISSUE OF PAYMENTS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES CLIENTS, AS THIS SHORT DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DELETED BY HIM & THE INTEREST DELETION IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE QUANTUM DELETION OF SHORT DEDUCTION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF FURTH ER APPEAL AS MENTIONED IN (I), (II) & (III) ABOVE. (V) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW IN DELETING THE DEMAND OF RS. 2,26,77,474/ - WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL & LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS CLEARLY BROUGHT BY THE AO IN ORDER U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AD JOURNMENT LETTER HAS BEEN RECEIVED DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, HENCE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AND COS ON ITS MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT , ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MEDIA PLANNING AND OTHER INCID ENTAL ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF ADVERTISING AND MARKETING. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 08.07.2011 , WHEREIN I T WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT THROUGH OUTDOOR DISPLAY, W HICH GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 4 INCLUDES PAYMENTS FOR ADVERTISEMENT ON HOARDINGS/BILLBOARDS. DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR S 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF R S. 80,48,15,421/ - AND RS. 90,33,26,197/ - RESPECTIVELY, OUT OF WHICH AMOUNT OF RS. 78,37,55, 639/ - (IN FY 2009 - 10) AND RS. 89,01,30,102/ - (IN FY 2010 - 11) WAS PAID TO TWO FIRMS, M/S PORTLAND INDIA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PVT LTD (PORTLAND) AND M/S POSTER PUBLICITY DIVISION OF MEDIA - EDGE (CIA INDIA PVT LIMITED) (POSTER) . O N SUCH PAYMENT, ASSESSEE HAS DED UCTED TDS @ 2% U/S 194C. 4 . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION IS THAT THE PAYEE FIRMS WERE FOUND TO HAVE SUBLET THE HOARDINGS SITE TO THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE , ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS @ 10% AS RENT U/S 194I. IN RESPONSE T O THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED VERY DETAIL EXPLANATION VIDE REPLY DATED 12.11.2011 , WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BUSINESS OF ADVERTISING ENTERED INTO CONTRACT WITH RESPECTIVE MEDIA VENDORS FOR MEDIA SPACE AND DISPLAY SERVICE S. THE PAYEE FIRMS HAVE ENTERED WITH THE CONTRACTS WITH THE OTHER HOARDINGS CONTRACTORS/SERVICE PROVIDERS AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR TAKING THE SPACE FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND WERE THEMSELVES WERE NOT THE OWNER OF ANY ADVERTISEMENT SITE, KIOSKS, NEON SIGNS , ETC. THUS, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSES S EE AND THE TWO PAYEE FIRMS ARE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORK S CONTRACT AS GIVEN IN EXPLANATION TO 194C WHICH INCLUDES THE WORD ADVERTISING. SECONDLY, THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE TWO PAYEE FIRMS ARE FOR ADV ERTISING AND NOT FOR ANY LEASE OR SUB - LEASE OF SPACE. LASTLY, THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSES S EE AND THE OWNERS OF THE HOARDINGS OR SPACE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TDS U/S 194I. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING T WO DECISIONS : - (I) OGIVLY & MATHA IN THE ITA NO. 5202/DEL/2004, ITAT DELHI (II) ROSHAN PUBLICITY IN ITA NO. 1277/MUM/2011, ITAT, MUMBAI GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 5 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194I AND THEREBY , TREATED THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND ALSO LEVIED INTEREST U/S 201(1A). WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON CATENA OF CASE LAWS, WHICH ARE NOT BEING DISCUSSED HERE, AS THEY ARE NOT VERY RELEVANT FOR THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED CASE. 5 . BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE, AGAIN MADE VERY DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED FROM PAGES 8 TO 21 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSI DERING THE ENTIRE SUBMISSION AS WELL AS THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSES S EE THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISEMENT DID NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF RENT A ND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 194I. WHILE COMING TO HIS CONCLUSION, HE REFERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 08.08.1995, FROM WHERE THE RELEVANT QUESTION AND ANSWER ELABORATED IN THE CIRCULAR HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED BY HIM AT PAGES 22 AND 23 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. FROM CLARIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE CBDT, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT IT HAS BEEN MADE AMPLY CLEAR BY THE BOARD THAT CONTRACT FOR PUTTING - UP HOARDING WOULD BE COVERED U/S 194C. HERE IN THIS CASE, THE NATURE OF CONTRACT OF THE ASSES S EE WITH THE PAYEE FIRM IS PURELY IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACT FOR THE WORK OF ADVERTISEMENT AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IV)(A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 194C , HENCE IT IS PURELY WORKS CONTRACT AND NOT A RENT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF TH E CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS AS UNDER : - 3.13. THE ABOVE CLARIFICATIONS OF THE BOARD REGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 194C, 194J AND 194 - I OF THE ACT MAKE IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT STRAIGHTAWAY FALLS IN SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE AP PELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH OTHER PARTIES FOR GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 6 DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS OF ITS CLIENTS AND THE TRANSACTION IS PURELY IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACT FOR THE 'WORK' OF ADVERTISING AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IV)(A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 194C. FROM T HE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SPACE ON HIRE OR ON SUBLETTING BASIS FROM THESE OTHER PARTIES. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BECAUSE THESE OTHER PARTIES NAMELY PORTLAND INDIA OUTDOOR ADVE RTISING PVT. LTD, POSTER PUBLICITY (DIVISION OF MEDIA EDGE: CIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) AND OTHERS HAVE ALSO NOT TAKEN ANY SPACE ON HIRE SO AS TO BE ABLE TO SUBLET THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. 3.14 TO ELABORATE THIS ASPECT FURTHER, THERE COULD BE A SITUATIO N WHERE AN ASSESSEE TAKES A HOARDING ON HIRE FROM A HOARDING OWNER FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD TO DISPLAY THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF ITS CLIENTS AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS THE COMPLETE CONTROL AND RIGHT ON THE HOARDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE D ISPLAY THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF ITS CLIENTS. ALSO, THERE IS NO STIPULATION IN THE CONTRACT AS TO WHICH ADVERTISEMENT WILL BE DISPLAYED ON SUCH HOARDING DURING THIS PERIOD. DURING THIS PERIOD, THE OWNER OF THE HOARDING HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE HOARDING SITE SO FAR AS THE DISPLAY OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS IS CONCERNED. RATHER THE CONTROL IS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OWNER IS, SAY ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE HOARDING SITE. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE CHARGES FOR HIRE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HOARDING OWNER WOULD CERTAINLY BE CATEGORIZED AS 'RENT'. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE SITUATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT AT ALL TAKEN ON HIRE THE HOARDING SITE FROM THE PARTIES CONCERNED IN TERMS OF ABOVE STIPULATIONS. IT HAS ONLY OBTAINED THE DISPLAY RIGHT OF ITS ADVERTISEMENTS IN GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 7 RESPECT OF CERTAIN HOARDING SITES FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD THROUGH OTHER PARTIES WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE HOARDING OWNERS. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT INVOLVED IN PUTTING UP ITS ADVERTISEMENTS ON T HE SAID HOARDING SITES. IT IS ONLY PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DESIGN AND MATERIAL TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED SO AS TO PUT UP THE ADVERTISEMENTS ON SUCH SITES FOR APPELLANTS CLIENTS. HENCE FROM ANY ANGLE, THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD, CANNO T BE CATEGORIZED AS 'RENT'. THERE IS, THEREFORE NO SCOPE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 - 1 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 3.15 COMING TO THE CASE TAWS CITED BY THE AO AND THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAXMI SHEELA PREMISES CHS LTD (SUPRA) CITED BY THE AO, THE ISSUE WAS THE TAXABILITY OF LEASE 'RENTALS VI RESPECT OF A PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE HANDS OF THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING FOR FIXING THE HOARDING OF THE ADVERTISER. IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEASE RE NTALS SHALL BE ASSESSED AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. FIRSTLY THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE IN THAT CASE AND SECONDLY THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SENSE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN ON LE ASE ANY PORTION OF A BUILDING FOR FIXING ITS HOARDING(S). THE OTHER CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AO, HAVE BEEN CITED OUT OF CONTEXT AND NONE OF THEM IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS NOT PAID ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT SECTION 194C OF THE ACT DEFINES THE WORK OF 'ADVERTISING' TO BE IN THE NATURE OF 'WORK CONTRACT' IN CLAUSE (IV)(A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 194C. 3.16 COMING TO THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF OGILVY AND MATHER PVT. LTD (SUPR A) AND ROSHAN PUBLICITY PVT. LTD (BOTH SUPRA), THE ITAT, DELHI AND MUMBAI HAVE RESPECTIVELY DECIDED EXACTLY THE SAME GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 8 ISSUE AND HAVE HELD THAT THE WORK OF ADVERTISEMENT WHICH INCLUDES VARIOUS SERVICES WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF 'WORK CONTRACT' AND HENC E THE TAX WILL BE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ADVERTISER TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ACT IN REGARD TO AN ISSUE/ITEM (AS IN THE CASE OF THE PAYMENTS FOR 'ADVERTISING' AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IV)(A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 194C OF THE ACT), THEN THE 'GENERAL PROVISIONS' OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. THIS ARGUM ENT OF THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS FORCE AND HENCE CANNOT BE IGNORED. FINALLY, IN THE CASES OF SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD, ELI LILLY & CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD AND CHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (ALL SUPRA), HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, ITAT, DELHI AND ITAT, MUMBAI RESPECTIVELY HAVE HELD THAT FOR THE PAYMENT TO BE CATEGORIZED AS RENT, EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE SPACE/TRANSMISSION LINES/EQUIPMENT ETC IS NECESSARY AND THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE SHOULD BE AKIN TO LEASE, SUBLEASE OR TENAN CY TO FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194 - 1 OF THE ACT. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS PREVAIL IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THUS IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO OTHER PARTIES FOR DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS OF ITS CLIENTS ARE NO T IN THE NATURE OF 'RENT'. THESE PAYMENTS ARE TOWARDS A WORK CONTRACT AND HENCE THE TAX WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 1940 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HOLDING THE APPELLANT TO BE 'AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT'. THUS THE AGGREGATE DEMAND OF RS. 2,26,77,474/ - RAISED BY THE AO, UNDER SECTION 201(1) IN RESPECT OF TAX AND UNDER SECTION 201(1A) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST THEREON IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. SAME IS HEREBY GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 9 DELETED. 6 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE DR, WE FIND THAT IT I S AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH M/S PORTLAND INDIA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PVT LTD AND POSTER PUBLICITY DIVISION OF MEDIA - EDGE (CIA INDIA PVT LIMITED) (PAYEE FIRMS) FOR DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENT OF ITS CLIENTS. THESE PAYEE FIRMS IN TURN OBTAINED DISPLAY SERVICES FOR DISPLAYING ADVERTISEMENT ON HOARDINGS SITES ETC. , TAKE N F ROM THE HOARDING CONTRACT OR S/SERVICE PROVIDERS/MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. THERE IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THESE TWO PAYEE FIRMS FOR PROVIDING ANY SPACE/LAND/BUILDING, MACHINERY ETC. SO AS TO FALL IN THE REALM OF RENT AS STATED IN SECTION 194I. HERE IT IS A PURE CASE OF ADVERTI SING CONTRACT FOR WHICH TDS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194 C. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AS RECORDED ABOVE ARE BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS, LAW AND THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND ACCORDINGLY SAME IS AFFIRMED . THUS GROUND S RAISED BY T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED IN BOTH THE YEARS. 7. IN CROSS OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ON ALL THE COUNTS ARE CORRECT. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING GIVEN ABOVE, THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH ARE PURELY IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ARE THUS UPHELD AND ACCORDINGLY , THE CO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEAR ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS C O S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 4 TH SEPTE MBER , 2015 GOLDMAN SACHS INDIA FINANCE PVT LIMITED ITA NO. 7055 /MUM/201 2 CO NO. 17/MUM/2014 ITA NO. 7056/MUM/2012 CO NO. 18/MUM/2014 10 / COPY TO: - 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) - 14 , MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT (TDS) CONCERNED ______ , MUMBAI. 5) , , / THE D.R. G BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) \ COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS