ITO, Ward- 8(3), New Delhi V. E24 Glamour Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4254/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2001 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT KISHORE
• Keywords: TDS; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 4254/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), New Delhi-110002 Vs E24 Glamour Ltd., 352, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot No. 8, Kondli, New Delhi-110096 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCB0874H Assessee by : Sh. Amit Arora, CA Revenue by : Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29.06.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi dated 13.02.2019. 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of broadcasting of entertainment channel. During the year, the assessee company has claimed expenses reimbursed to the holding M/s BAG Films and Media Ltd. and M/s Allied Infotainment Distribution Pvt. Ltd. The assessee company has not furnished requisite details alongwith the proof of TDS on the payments made before the Assessing Officer. The company has furnished the copy of confirmation dated 10.02.2015 from the aforesaid companies that TDS was deducted wherever it was applicable but no proof of deposit or challan was furnished for verification. Hence, the AO disallowed the amount reimbursed. ITA No. 4254/Del/2019 E24 Glamour Ltd. 2 3. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has furnished copies of Form 16A in support of TDS in the payment made to M/s Allied Infotainment Distribution Pvt. Ltd. on account of channel payment charges of Rs.17.03 Cr. which is included in the total addition made by the AO of Rs.17.78 Cr. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the remaining amount of Rs.2.72 Cr. as the assessee failed to deduct the TDS. Since, the remission given by the ld. CIT(A) is rightly based on Form 16A and Form 26AS, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/06/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29/06/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR