DCIT TDS 1(3), MUMBAI V. MUSIC BROADCAST P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3217/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3957 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' D ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3217/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) - 1(3) , ROOM NO. 604, SMT. K.G. MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD (W), MUMBAI - 400002 VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. 5 TH FLOOR, RNA CORPORAT PARK KALANAGAR, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI - 400051 PAN AACCM4036G APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA, A.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANISH MALIK, D.R DATE OF HEARING: 23 .10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 3 1 . 10.2018 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 59, MUMBAI, 27.02.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 27.03.201 5. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 GROUNDS OF APPEAL : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO RADIO JOCKEYS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 192 OF THE ACT IGNORING THE TERMS OF CONTRACT WHICH INCLUDE REPORTING TIME, FIXED WORKING HOURS, FIXED REMUNERATION, INCREASE, EL REIMBURSEMENT ETC. AND CONSEQUENTLY DELETING THE DEMANDS RAIS ED U/S.201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE CASE OR THEREAFTER. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS BE SET ASIDE AND A.O. S ORDER BE RESTORED . 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN BROADCASTING PRIVATE FM RADIO , AND HA D STARTED INDIA S FIRST PRIVATE FM STATION , RADIO CITY 1 , BANGALORE IN JULY, 2001. PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE A.O IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT, HELD THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN DEFAULT AS REGARDS DEDUCTION /SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON VARIOUS COUNTS, VIZ. (I) DEFAULT UNDER SEC.201(1) ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON COMMISSION/DISCOUNTS TO ADVERTISING AGENCIES UNDER SEC.194H OF THE ACT: RS.2,25,63,999/ - ; (II) INTEREST UNDER SEC.201(1A) IN RESPECT OF DEFAULT UNDER SEC.201(1) PERTAINING TO DISCOUNT/COMMISSION PAID TO ADVER TISING AGENCIES (FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2012 TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER, I.E 27.03.2015): RS.81,23,039/ - ; (III) DEFAULT UNDER SEC.201(1) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON SALARY PAID TO RADIO JOCKEYS UNDER SEC. 194J : RS.58,82,159/ - ; AND (IV) IN TEREST UNDER SEC.201(1A) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON SALARY PAID TO RADIO JOCKEYS FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2012 TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER I.E. 27.03.2015) : RS.21,17,577/ - . ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATION S , THE A.O WORKED OUT THE TOTAL LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS.3,86,86,774/ - . 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) , THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAD BEEN DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN ITS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN ITA NO. 548/MUM/2015 AND C.O NO. 138/MUM/2016, DATED 07.12.2016. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE CIT(A) RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 WHEREIN IDENTICAL FACTS WERE INVOLVED, REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE A.O AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSE S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 VIZ. ACIT (TDS) - 1(3), MUMBAI VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD, MUMBAI [ITA NO. 548/MUM/2015 & C.O. NO. 138/MUM/2016; 07.12.2016] (COPY PLACED ON RECORD). THE LD. A.R DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFOREMENTION ED CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12, AVERRED THAT THE APPEAL WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y 2011 - 12, WAS THEREAFTER FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER COORDI NATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E ITAT J BENCH, MUMBAI WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 VIZ. DCIT(TDS) - 1(3), MUMBAI VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD.[ITA NO. 3935/MUM/2015 & C.O. NO. 20/MUM/2017, DATE D 18.04.2017] (COPY PLACED ON RECORD). 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. HOWEVER, THE LD. D.R DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 I.E ACIT (TDS) - 1(3), MUM BAI VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD., MUMBAI [ITA NO. 548/MUM/2015 & C.O 138/MUM/2018] , IT STANDS REVEALED THAT ALL OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE VIZ. (I) DEFAULT UNDER SEC.201 ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTIN G TAX AT SOURCE ON DISCOUNT/COMMISSION PAID TO ADVERTISING AGENCY UNDER SEC. 194H; (II) INTEREST UNDER SEC. 201(1A) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON DISCOUNT/COMMISSION PAID TO ADVERTISING AGENCIES; (III) DEFAULT UNDER SEC.201(1) ON ACCOUN T OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SALARY PAID TO RADIO JOCKEYS UNDER SEC. 194J OF THE ACT; AND P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. (IV) INTEREST UNDER SEC.201(1A) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOU RCE ON SALARY PAID TO RADIO JOCKEYS , WERE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL , HAD AFTER DELIBERATING AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION , OBSERVED AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US. WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE 'DISCOUNT' ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE RAISING THE INVOICES ON THE ADVERTI SING AGENCIES AS REGARDS THE ADVERTISING WORK PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THEM, WAS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, WHICH PRACTICE OF GIVING DISCOUNTS WAS NOT ONLY RESTRICTED TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES, BUT RATHER AS A PREVAILING INDUSTRY PRACTICE, WAS UNIFORMLY ALLOWED TO ANY PERSON WHO WOULD BUY AIRTIME FROM THE ASSESSEE, I.E DIRECT ADVERTISERS OR THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES. WE FURTHER FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE C IT(A), THAT NOW WHEN IT WAS A MATTER OF FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FROM WHERE IT COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES WERE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE AGENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THEY HAD RECEIVED ANY REMUNERAT ION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THEIR AIRTIME, THEREFORE IT WAS ABSOLUTELY IMPERMISSIBLE TO RE - CHARACTERIZE THE 'DISCOUNTS' GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES, AS AMOUNTS PASSED OVER BY WAY OF 'COMMISSION' FOR THE ADVERTISING WORK PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID ADVERTISING AGENCIES. WE THOUGH ARE ONE WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O THAT THE TERM 'COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE' AS STANDS CONTEMPLATED U/S 194H OF THE 'ACT', IS A TERM OF WIDE CONNOTATION AND HAD BEEN SO DEFINED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL ITS WISDOM IN EXPLANATION (I) OF SECTION 194H, AS A RESULT WHEREOF, AN AMOUNT WHICH IS PAID/CREDITED BY AN ASSESSEE, WHICH SAFELY CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF GAMUT OF THE S AID DEFINITION, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE IN THE GARB OF A DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURE. HOWEVER, IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, WE CANNOT ALSO REMAIN OBLIVIOUS OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW, THAT THE 'ONUS' TO ESTABLISH THAT WHAT IS APPARENT IS NOT TRUE, LIES ON THE PERSONS WHO SO ALLEGES. THUS NOW WHEN IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF 'DISCOUNTS' ALLOWED TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES, WAS AS A MATTER OF FACT PASSING OVER 'COMMISSIONS' TO THEM, THEN EXCEPT FOR HARPING ON THE SAID CLAIM, IT WAS FOR THE A.O TO PLACE ON RECORD SUBSTANTIAL CLINCHING EVIDENCES WHICH COULD IRREBUTABLY FORTIFY THE SAID FACTUAL POSITION. HOWEVER, THE A.O AFTER CLAIMING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PASSIN G OVER COMMISSIONS TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES IN THE GARB OF DISCOUNTS, HAD FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY SUCH MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS ALLOWING 'DISCOUNTS' THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, COULD BE DISTURBED AND DISLODGED. THAT A DOUBT OR SUSPICION, HOWSOEVER STRONG AND LOGICAL IT MAY BE, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO NULLIFY A CLAIM WHICH IS BASED ON EVIDENCE OR FACTS BORNE FROM RECORDS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT EVEN THE CONVICTIONS HELD BY THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF DOUBTS AND SUSPICIONS, ALSO, HAD BEEN DISPELLED AND PUT TO REST BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD AND STRONG REASONING BACKING THE SAME. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, MUCH THE LESS EVIDENCE, FROM WHERE IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES WERE AGENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR THEY HAD RECEIVED ANY REMUNERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THEIR AIRTIME, THE 'DISCOUNTS' ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A SMOKE SCREEN IN THE GARB OF WHICH COMMISSION WAS BEING PASSED OVER TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES. WE ARE THUS OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF CONCRETE FINDINGS BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND BY TAKING SUPPORT OF HOST OF JUDICIAL P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. PRONOUNCEMENTS, HAD THUS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY COMMISSION TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES, AND IN THE BACKDROP OF THE SAID OBSERVATIONS, THUS CA NNOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT U/ SS. 201(1)/201(1A) FOR NOT HAVING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194H OF THE 'ACT' ON THE SAID AMOUNTS. THUS FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THUS TH E GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1(I) SO RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE FURTHER GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RADIO JOCKEYS FOR HOSTING SHOWS ON RADIO, IN LIGHT OF THE 'AGREEMENTS' EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SAID PARTIES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT NOW WHEN THERE IS NO FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS FROM WHERE IT COULD BE SAFELY AND' INESCAPABLY GATHERED THAT THE RADIO JOCKEYS WERE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT RATHER THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD PROVE TO THE CONTRARY, THEREFORE ON THE SAID COUNT ITSELF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RADIO JOCKEYS WERE IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS BEING MADE TO FREE LANCE PROFESSIO NALS, ON WHICH TAX HAD RIGHTLY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE 'ACT', THUS CANNOT BE DISLODGED. WE FURTHER FIND OURSELVES AS BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), THAT THE INCONSISTENT STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O, WHEREIN THE LATTER AS REG ARDS PAYMENTS MADE TO RADIO JOCKEY'S, BY CATEGORIZING THEM INTO TWO CATEGORIES, AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE, CAN SAFELY BE HELD TO BE AN INCOHERENT ACTION ON THE PART OF THE A.O, WHICH IN ITSELF WOULD PUT TO REST HIS OBSERVATIONS THAT AN EMPLOYER - EMPLOYEE RELATION DID EXIST BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RADIO JOCKEYS. WE ARE THUS OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF CONCRETE FINDINGS BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HAD RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE PAY MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RADIO JOCKEYS, WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS TO FREE LANCE PROFESSIONALS, AND AS SUCH WERE RIGHTLY SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, COULD NOT BE WHIMSICALLY HELD AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES. THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SAFELY AND RATHER INESCAPABLY HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RADIO JOCKEYS, AS PER THE FACTS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS, WERE IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS TO PROFESSIONALS, WHICH HAD RIGHTLY BEEN SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE U/ S 194J OF THE 'ACT'. WE ARE THUS PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A), THAT IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THEY SO REMAIN, THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT U/SS. 201(1)/201(1A) FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE 'ACT' ON THE SAID AMOUNTS. THUS FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 (II) SO RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2010 - 11 , AND FIND THAT ALL THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US HAD BEEN DELIBERATED UPON AND THEREIN STANDS ADJUDICATED. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND FIND ING OURSELVES AS BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW THEREIN TAKEN, THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME. IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO INFIRMITY DOES EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY FOLLOWED TH E AFORESAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE S UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL IN THE ASSESSES CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. WE THUS, FINDING NO REASON TO DISLODGE P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLD HIS ORDER AND DISM ISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 . 10.2018 S D / - S D / - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 31 .10.2018 PS. ROHIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 3217/MUM/2017 A.Y 2013 - 14 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD.