TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO (TDS) 3(4), MUMBAI

CO 201/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0574 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PORUS KAKAAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N Y NADIK ARNI
• Section: 133A; 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

, E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , ! '# $ %, & ' BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM . / ITA NO.4809 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ) ITO(TDS) 3(4), 10 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.1011, SMT. K.G.M. AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 .. / APPELLANT V/S TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, TRADE GARDENS, KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, MUMBAI 400013 .... / RESPONDENT CO NO . 20 1 / /MUM/2014(ARISING ITA NO.4809 /MUM/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11, ) TIMES GLOBAL BROADCA STING CO. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, TRADE GARDENS, KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, MUMBAI 400013 .. / APPELLANT V/S ITO(TDS) 3(4), 10 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.1011, SMT. K.G.M. AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 .... / RESPONDENT TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 2 . / ITA NO.4807/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ) ITO(TDS) 3(4), 10 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.1011, SMT. K.G.M. AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 .. / APPELLANT V/S TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, TRADE GARDENS, KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, MUMBAI 400013 .... / RESPONDENT CO NO . 202 / /MUM/2014(ARISING ITA NO.4807 /MUM/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12, ) TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, TRADE GARDENS, KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, MUMBAI 400013 .. / APPELLANT V/S ITO(TDS) 3(4), 10 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.1011, SMT. K.G.M. AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 .... / RESPONDENT %& . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AACCT2259F REVENUE BY : SHRI N.Y. NADIKARNI (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PORUS KAKA (AR) ' ( ) *+& / DATE OF HEARING 23.04.2015 ,%- ./ ) *+& / DATE OF ORDER 27.05.2015 $ / ORDER TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 3 '# $ %, & (! / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDE R DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS), MUMBAI, IN RELATION TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 201(1)/201(1A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. THE REVENUE IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS MAI NLY CHALLENGED THAT THE PLACEMENT CHARGES PAID TO THE CABLE OPERATORS /MSOS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED IS IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL FEE W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194J AND THEREFORE, TDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED UNDER THE SAID SECTION, INSTEAD OF SECTION 194C AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL, SHRI PORUS KAKA SUBMITTED THAT, SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL, HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF UTV ENTERTA INMENT TELEVISION LIMITED. THE LD. DR ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE IS SUE INVOLVED IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE. TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 4 4. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BROAD CASTING OF NEWS, IN TELEVISION CHANNELS THROUGH ITS OWN SATELLIT E TELEVISION CHANNELS NAMELY, TIMES NOW AND ET NOW AND TI MES MOVIES. IN THIS CASE A SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CON DUCTED ON 4 TH MARCH 2011 TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF TAX DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIIB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT AND THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.90,32,25,080/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND RS.99,31,52,192/- IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, UNDER THE HEAD CARRIAGE FEES/CHANNEL PLACEMENT EXPENSE. ON THE SAID PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DED UCTED TDS U/S.194C. THE REVENUES CONTENTION WAS THAT SUCH A PAY MENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS MSOS/ CABLE OPERATORS WAS FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED BY SUCH LENDERS FOR PLACING ITS CH ANNEL IN THE PRIME BAND, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J AND CLEA RLY APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE UN DER THE SAID SECTION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 201(1). HE FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S.194J HAS NOT BEEN TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 5 ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED B EFORE THE ITAT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND FOLL OWING THE EARLIER YEARS ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTL Y DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S.194C. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 669/MUM/2012, IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT THE CHANNEL REPLACEMENT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.194C AND NOT U/S.194J. WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION THE TRIBUNAL HAS REFERRED AND RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF ACIT (TDS) VS. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD. ORDER DATED 29 .10.2014 IN ITA NO.2699/MUM/2012 & 2700/MUM/2012. IN THE SAID DECISI ON, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS HIGH COURT DECISION S AND ALSO THE EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 194C, WHICH DEFINES THAT THE WORD THE WORK SHALL INCLUDE INTER ALIA BROADCASTING AND TELECASTIN G INCLUDING PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMME FOR SUCH BROADCASTING AND T ELECASTING. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD. (SUPRA) ARE AS UNDER : TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 6 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PA YMENT IN QUESTION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CABLE OPER ATORS! MSOS FOR PLACING THE TV CHANNELS IN THE PRIME BAND IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE VIEWERSHIP AND BETTER ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE. IN THE CASE OF KURUKSHETRA DARPANS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDE NTICAL QUESTION HAS HELD IN PARA 13 TO 18 AS UNDER:- 13.AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLA NT ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. SEC. L94COF THE ACT CREATES AN OBLIGAT ION ON A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM SPECI F IED THEREIN TO A PERSON FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK, TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE. ' PRESENTLY, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE WORK' AS REFERRED TO IN C L(B) OF EXPIN. 111 BELOW S.194C(2)OF THE ACT. 14. IN TERMS OF THE SAID EXPLANATION. IT IS PROVIDE D THAT EXPRESSION 'WORK' SHALL INCLUDE INTER ALIA BROADCAS TING AND TELECASTING INCLUDING PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMMES FOR SUCH BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING. BY WAY OF SUCH EXPLAN ATION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHERE THE PAYMENT IS FOR A WORK INVOLV ING BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING. THE SAME SHALL BE SUB JECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN TEMS OF SECTION 194 O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A CABLE NETWORK OPERATOR THROUGH WHICH IT PROVIDES TELECASTING OF PROGRAMMES TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS /SUBSCRIBERS. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITH TH E LICENSOR OF VARIOUS TV CHANNELS. ON THE PAYMENT SO MADE, S. 194 C OF THE ACT' IS ATTRACTED. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT THE LICENSOR. IS A PERSON WHO IS PERFORMING THE WORK WHICH IS COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF CI. (B) OF EXPIN. III TO S. 194C(2) OF T HE ACT. 15. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LICENSOR, THE LICENSOR IS REFERRED TO AS 'COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF SATELLITE BASED TELEVISION CHANNEL('S) SERVICES INCLUDING THE SERVICE AND HAS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO MARKET AND DISTRIBUTE THE S ERVICES IN INDIA TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 7 TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS AND USERS OF THE SERVICE'. FUR THER, THE AGREEMENT REFERS TO THE ASSESSEE SUBSCRIBER AS A PA RTY, WHICH IS DESIROUS TO SUBSCRIBE FOR AND RECEIVE THE TELECAST SIGNALS OF THE SERVICE FROM THE COMPANY IN ORDER TO FURTHER DISTRI BUTE THE SAME TO THE CUSTOMERS). 16. FROM THE RECITAL OF THE AGREEMENT 'ITSELF, IT I S CLEAR THAT THE SERVICE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSCRIBER IS AVAILING IS THE RECEIPT OF 'TELECASTING SIGNALS' FROM THE LICENSOR OR THE COMP ANY. THE EXPRESSION 'SERVICE' HAS ALSO BEEN REFERRED TO MEAN THE TV CHANNEL WHICH IS DEALT WITH BY THE LICENSOR OR THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSACTED FOR WITH THE LICEN SOR OR COMPANY CERTAINLY INCLUDES WITHIN ITS AMBIT BROADCA STING AND TELECASTING FACILITY. THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT I S TO OBTAIN BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING OF TV CHANNELS AND THE REAFTER ITS DISTRIBUTION AMONGST ULTIMATE CUSTOMERS THROUGH THE CABLE NETWORK OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. ANOTHER PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE/SUBSCRIBER WAS THA T THE LICENSOR OR THE PERSON TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING PAYMENT B Y ITSELF DOES NOT DO THE WORK OF BROADCASTING' AND TELECASTI NG AND IS THEREFORE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF S. 194C OF THE ACT . THIS ARGUMENT DESERVES TO BE NEGATED AT THE THRESHOLD. A S WE HAVE POINTED OUT EARLIER WHAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSCRIBER IS LOOKING FOR IS TO OBTAIN THE TELECAST SIGNALS FROM THE LICENSOR, W HICH IS ENOUGH. TO DEDUCE THAT THE IMPUGNED CONTRACT INVOLVES BROAD CASTING AND TELECASTING OF TV SIGNALS . MOREOVER; THE LICENSOR OR THE COMPANY, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SPECIMEN AGREEMENT ON RECORD, IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF SATELLITE BASED TV CHANNELS AND HAS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO MARKET AND DISTRIBUTE SAID SERVICES IN INDIA, THE SERVICE THAT IS REFERRED TO IN THE AGREE MENT IS THE BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING OF TV SIGNALS. 18. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESI TATION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF S .194C OF THE TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 8 ACT ON PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LICENSOR FOR OBTAINING TV SIGNALS. CABLE TV NETWORK OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE.' 7. THUS AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE EXPLANATION III TO THE THEN SECTION 194C, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PAYMENT FOR OBTAINING THE TELECAST LICENSES FROM THE LICENSOR FALLS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. WE FIND THAT THE WORK OF BROADCASTING /TELECASTING INCLUDING PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMME OR SUCH BROADCAST ING OR TELECASTING FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF 'WORK' AS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE (IV) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194C WHIC H READS AS UNDER:- 'EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION - ******************************* ****************************** (IV) 'WORK' SHALL INCLUDE- (Q)ADVERTISING; (B) BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING INCLUDING PRODUCTION O F PROGRAMMES FOR SUCH BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING (C) CARRIAGE OF GOODS OR PASSENGERS BY ANY MODE OF TRAN SPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS; (D) CATERING; (E) MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A PRODUCT ACCORDING TO T HE REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION OF A CUSTOMER BY USING MATERIAL PU RCHASED FROM SUCH CUSTOMER BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A P RODUCT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFICATION OF A CUSTOMER BY USING MATERIAL PURCHASEDFROM A PERSON, OTHER THAN S UCH CUSTOMER.]' 8. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) (SUPRA) , HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 11 AS UNDER:- 'WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION. WE OB SERVE THAT EXPLANATION III, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED SIMULTANEOUSL Y WITH SECTION 194J, IS VERY SPECIFIC IN ITS APPLICATION TO NOT ON LY BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING BUT ALSO INCLUDE 'PRODUCTION OF PRO GRAMMES FOR TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 9 SUCH BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING' , IF, ON THE SAM E DATE, TWO PROVISIONS ARE INTRODUCED IN THE ACT, ONE SPECIFIC TO THE ACTIVITY SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AND THE OTHER IN MORE GENERAL TERMS, RE SORT MUST BE HAD TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION WHICH MANIFESTS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. IT IS NOT, THEREFORE, POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION O F THE REVENUE THAT PROGRAMMES PRODUCED FOR TELEVISION, INCLUDING 'COMM ISSIONED PROGRAMMES', WILL FALL OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SECTION 194C, EXPLANATION III OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM. 9. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR T HAT WHEN TWO PROVISIONS ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY INTRODUCED IN THE ACT ., ONE IS SPECIFIC AND ANOTHER IS MORE GENERAL IN TERMS THEN THE RESOR T MUST BE TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION. THEREFORE, WHEN THE WORK OF BRO ADCASTING AND TELECASTING OF THE PROGRAMMES SPECIFICALLY FALLS UN DER THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C, THEN IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1941 CANNOT BE APPLIED ON SUCH PAYMENTS. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 720 DATED 3 0.08.1995, ALSO SUPPORTS THIS VIEW AS IT WAS CLARIFIED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR AS UNDER:- '1261. PAYMENT OF ANY SUM SHALL BE LIABLE FOR DEDUC TION OF TAX ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD THAT IN SOME CASES PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ARE DEDUCTI NG SUCH TAX BY APPLYING MORE THAN ONE PROVISION FOR THE SAME PAYME NT. IN PARTICULAR, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE SUMS PAID FOR CARR YING OUT WORK OF ADVERTISING ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C AS PAYMENT FOR WORK CONTRACT AS ALSO U NDER SECTION 1941 AS PAYMENTS OF FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 2. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT EACH SECTION, REGARD ING TDS UNDER CHAPTER XVII, DEALS WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF PAYMENT TO TH E EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER SECTIONS IS THIS CHAPTER. THUS, PAYMENT OF AN Y SUM SHALL BE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. THEREFORE, A PAYMENT IS LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 10 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 11. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE PAYMENT FOR SUBTI TLING AND EDITING CHARGES, TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FEE FO R TECHNICAL SERVICE AND THEREBY APPLIED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE HAS RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MANISH DUTT (12 TAXMANN.COM 50), WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HELD IN PARA 8 TO 12 AS UNDER:- '8. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING DUBBING WORK. THE ASSESSEE WAS HA VING HIS OWN STUDIO COMPRISING OF VARIOUS DUBBING EQUIPMENTS AND PROFESSIONAL ARTIST TO CARRY ON THE WORK OF DUBBING . WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE'S OWN STUDIO COULD NOT BE USED THE ASS ESSEE USED TO GIVE THE JOB OF CARRYING OUT DUBBING WORK TO OTHER DUBBING STUDIOS. IN RESPECT OF ONE SUCH WORK ENTRUSTED BY T HE ASSESSEE TO ANOTHER STUDIO BY NAME NINETY DEGREES THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 1,60,000. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO A SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR EXECUTION OF A CON TRACT AND, THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF SECTION 194C THE ASSESS EE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT 2 PER CENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF SECTION 194-1 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT 20 PER CENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AT THE PROPER RATE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS. 1,60,000 UNDER THE HEAD S TUDIO HIRE CHARGES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. 9. BEFORE THE CJT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE CONTRACT DETAILS WERE NOT CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT A ND THAT THE WORK DONE BY 90 DEGREE WAS FOR WORK AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 11 SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT STUDIO IS BOOKED AND DUBBING WORK IS UNDERTAKEN USING STUDIO EQUIPMENT, STAFF ETC. THE WORD STUDIO HIRE IS A TERM GENERALLY USED BY INDUSTRY TO DENOTE THE VARIOUS SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DUBBING STUDIO. BUT THE REAL NATURE OF WORK IS A CONTRACT F OR CARRYING OUT WORK. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194C(7) WHERE AT (IV) 'WORK' WOULD INCLUDE BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING INCLUDING PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMMES FOR SUCH BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY IT FROM STUDIO 90 DEGREE WHICH SHOWED THAT IN RESPECT OF TV SERIAL KARMA THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK DUBBING WORK. T HE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND TURNER ENTERTAIN MENT A TELECASTING COMPANY WAS ALSO FILED 10. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE CIT( A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: '2.3.2 FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD ARE CONSIDERE D. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ONLY ASKED APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE PAYMENT BUT HAD NOT SPECIFIED ANY EVIDENCE TO BE FU RNISHED. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE APPEAL INDICATE THAT TH E STUDIO WAS HIRED FOR UTILIZING THE DUBBING FACILITIES WHICH IN CLUDED SERVICE THROUGH THE STUDIO STAFF CONDITION OF SECTION 194C( 7) EXPLANATION (IV) ARE MET ALSO. AS SUCH THE PAYMENT MADE WAS COV ERABLE UNDER SECTION 194C UNDER WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCED. ON FACTS, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS DELETE D.' 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENU E HAS RAISED GROUND NO.2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF DUBBING STUDIO NINETY DEGREES BY USING THEIR EQUIPM ENTS AS WELL AS THE ARTISTS WHO WERE WORKING FOR STUDIO NINETY D EGREES. THE ASSESSEE HAD THUS CARRIED OUT THE WORK OF DUBBING B Y ENGAGING SERVICES AND THE SAME WAS OF THE NATURE OF GETTING WORK DONE THROUGH A SUBCONTRACTOR. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 12 ARE NOT IN CHALLENGE BEFORE US. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WERE A PPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT 2 PER CENT TREATING THE PAYMENT AS A PAYMENT TO SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT A WORK. WE DO NOT FIND ANY GROUND TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO.2 RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN REFERRED OR PRODU CED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBU NAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND ALSO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISIO N LTD., WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TDS U/S.1 94J AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSES SEE IN DEFAULT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 201(1) AND CONSEQUENTLY, NO INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED U/S.201(1A) THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMEDAND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION GIVEN IN THE REVENUES A PPEALS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME PURELY A CADEMIC THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD. 13 8. IN THE RESULT ALL APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF MAY 2015. SD/- SD/- SD SD/ - . . B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - '# $ % & AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, )* DATED: 27.05.2015 PATEL ,%- ) *01 2%1* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) 3* / THE ASSESSEE; (2) 4 / THE REVENUE; (3) ' 5*( ) / THE CIT(A); (4) ' 5* / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) 18 *9, + 9, ' ( / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) 8; <( / GUARD FILE. 1 * * / TRUE COPY ,%- ' / BY ORDER = / > 4 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) + 9, ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI