DCIT (TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI V. DISH TV INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7403/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7637 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT PATANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH S SHAH
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; TDS
• Section: 194C; 201(1); 201; 194J

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ) DCIT(IT)-1(2) ROOM NO.814,8 TH FLOOR K.G.MITTAL HOSPITAL BUILDING CHARNI ROAD(WEST) MUMBAI-400 022 VS. DISH TV INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIDEOCON D2H LTD.) ZONE 5, TFCH WEB CENTRE NEW LINK ROAD BEHRAM BAUG OSHIWARA, JOGESHWARI (W) MUMBAI-400 012 PAN/GIR NO. AACCB1409R APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI ABHIJIT PATANKAR, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHAILESH S.SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING 20/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 29 /01/2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)60, MUMBAI, DATED 31/10/2018 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13.. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- (I) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 194H, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS DISTRIBUTORS WAS IN THE NATURE OF PRINCIPLE AGENT RELATIONSHIP AND HENCE THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE COMPANY TO ITS DISTRI BUTORS IN THE FORM OF DISCOUNT FALLS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194H O F THE ACT ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 2 (II) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD,CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE B Y RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF 'BHARTI AIRTEL LTD, 372 ITR 33, AS SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP HAS BEEN FI LED BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. (III) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED JIF DELETING THE INTERES T U/S. 201(1A) OF RS.3,72,11,418/- RAISED U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS, AS THIS NON DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DE LETED BY HIM WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME IS ALSO THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF FURTHER APPEAL AS MENTIONED ABOVE. (IV) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING ASSESSEE'S A PPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO INSTALLATION SERVICE PROVIDERS (IS P) FALL WITHIN A PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C & NOT UNDER IN THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 194J OF THE I.T, ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL PERS PECTIVE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE DEDUCT OR IS ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIALIZED TECHNICAL SERVICE SUCH AS INSTALLATION WORK OF DISH ANTENNA & INCIDENTAL HARDWARE I.E. DTH APPARATUS OF THE PREM ISES OF THE SUBSCRIBER REQUIRING HIGHLY SKILLED PERSONNEL AND CANNOT BE DO NE BY ANY LAYMAN EVEN AFTER READING THE INSTALLATION MANUAL (V) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EASE AND IN LAW (HE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROV ISIONS AS CONTAINED IN I94C ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT PERTAINING TO 'I NSTALLATION SERVICE PROVIDERS' WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTUA L & LEGAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO IN ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A). (VI) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE INTERES T U/S. 201(IA) OF RS.1,96,13,781/- ON THE ISSUE OF INSTALLATION SERVI CE PROVIDER, AS HITS SHORT DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DELETED BY HIM WITHOUT APP RECIATING THAT THE SAME IS ALSO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF FURTHER APPEAL, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. (VII)THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF T HE HEARING OF THE CASE OR THEREAFTER 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING DIRECT TO HOME (DTH) SERVICES IN THE NAME OF VIDEOCON D2H, FOR WHICH THE LICENSE IS GIVEN BY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS D ISTRIBUTORS FOR ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 3 DISTRIBUTION/SALE OF SET-TOP BOXES (STB) , PREPAID VOUCHERS, RECHARGE VOUCHERS, TOP-UP VOUCHERS ETC. THE ASSESSE HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS SERVICE PROVID ERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORK OF INSTALLATIO NS OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA. AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS ARE ALLOWED DISCOUNTS ON SALE OF STB AND RECHARGE VOUCHER FROM THEIR MAXIMUM RETAIL PRICE (M RP). THE DISTRIBUTOR/DEALER CAN SELL THESE ITEMS TO THE CUST OMERS AT A PRICE NOT EXCEEDING THE MRP. AS REGARDS, THE INSTALLATION CH ARGES PAID FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SERVICE CHARGES TO SERVICE PROVIDERS AND HAS DEDUCTED TAX A T SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, WHEREAS NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED, IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT OFFERED ON SALE OF STB AND RECH ARGE VOUCHERS TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS. THE LD. AO HAD ISSUED SHOW CA USE NOTICE U/S 201(1) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND CALLED UPON THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY TDS APPLICABLE, AS PER THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 194H SHALL NOT BE COMPUTED FOR COMMISSION PAID TO DISTRIBUTORS /DEALERS FOR SALE OF STB AND PRE-PAID VOUCHERS. THE LD. AO HAD ALSO I SSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY, SHORT FALL IN TDS DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT MADE TO SERVICE PRO VIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF DISH ANTENNA AND STB U/S 194J OF TH E I.T.ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION AND ARGU ED THAT NO TDS IS APPLICABLE, IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DE ALERS FOR SALE OF STB AND RECHARGE COUPONS. IN RESPECT OF SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAS RIGHTLY DEDCUTED TDS, AS PER THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO DID NOT CONVINCE WITH ARGUME NTS OF THE ASSESEE AND COMPUTED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194 H, IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS, FOR SALE OF STB AND ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 4 RECHARGE COUPONS. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO COMPUTED SHOR T DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A), IN RESPECT OF SERVIC E CHARGES PAID TO SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA U/S 194J, AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSE SEE HAS FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3-40 OF LD.CIT(A) ORDER. THE SU M AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ARE THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194H HAS NO APPLI CATION, IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS FOR SAL E OF STB AND RECHARGE COUPONS, BECAUSE THE SAID AGREEMENT IS ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS AND THE TITLE AND OWNERSHIP IN GOOD S HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS. INSOFAR AS, SE RVICE CHARGES PAID TO SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS IN THE NATURE OF W ORKS CONTRACT, WHICH COMES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TDS, AS PER SE CTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWA RDS SHORT COMPUTATION OF TDS AND INTEREST U/S 201(1) AND 201 (1A) OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEAL ERS, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ON PRIN CIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. SIMILARLY, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS, IN RESPECT O F PAYMENT MADE TO SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DI SH ANTENNA. ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 5 AGGRIEVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON FROM GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 OF REVENUE APPEAL IS APPLICABILITY OF PR OVISION OF SECTION 194H, IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTOR S/DEALERS FOR SALE OF STB AND RECHARGE COUPONS. THE LD. AR, FOR THE ASSES SEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARE LY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUM BAI B BENCH IN ASSESSE OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 7200/MUM/2012 AND 7201 /MUM/2012 FOR AY 2010-11 AND 2011-12, WHERE THE ISSUE HAS BE EN CONSIDERED ,IN LIGHT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND HELD THAT DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS IS ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS, WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIO N OF ITAT, IN THE CASE OF VIDEOCON2 DTH LTD VS DCIT(TDS) MUMBAI, IN ITA NO.7047/MUM/2012 FOR AY 2010-11, BUT HE HAS STRONGL Y SUPPORTED ORDER OF THE LD. AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF B BENCH MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF M/S VIDEOCON D 2H LTD. VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 7200/MUM/2012 AND 7201/MUM/2012 FOR AY 2 010-11 AND 2011-12, WHERE UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND ON BASIS OF SIMILAR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE TRIBUNAL HELD TH AT DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS IS ON THE PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 6 WHICH DOES NOT COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMMISS ION, AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE RELEVANT FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER;- 5. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN PARAMETERIA WITH T HE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HAVING BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT AND ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD., WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR TR EATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURC E ON TRADE DISCOUNT GRANTED TO PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTOR BY HOLDING THE SAM E AS COMMISSION, HENCE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE IT ACT. 8. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH V IEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT DISCOUNT OFFERED TO DISTRIBUTOR/DEALERS IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION, AS DEFINED U/S 194H OF THE ACT, AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON SAID PAYMENT. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS NON LEVY OF TDS U/S 194H OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF TH E LD.CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATIO N FROM GROUND NO. 4 TO 6 OF APPEAL IS SHORT LEVY OF TDS, IN RESPE CT OF SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE BY THE DECISI ON OF ITAT, MUMBAI B BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S VIDEOCON D2H LT D VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 7200/MUM/2012 AND 7201/MUM/2012 FOR AY 2010 -11 AND 2011-12, WHERE IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT SERVICES CHARGES PAID TO ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 7 SERVICE PROVIDERS IS IN THE NATURE OF WORKS CONTRA CTS AND HENCE, THE ASSESEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C OF THE I. T.ACT, 1961. 10. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUE IS CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, IN ASSESSE OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, BUT HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED ORDER OF T HE LD. AO. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THOUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI, ITAT IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 AND 2011- 12, WHERE UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO SERVICE PROVIDERS IS IN THE NATURE OF WORKS CONTRACTS AND HENCE, THE ASSESEE HAS RIGHTLY CONDUCTED TDS U/ S 194C OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 . THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L ARE AS UNDER:- 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFU LLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM RECO RD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS THE SERVICE PROVIDER OF DIRECT TO HOME [ DTH] SERVICES IN THE NAME OF VIDEOCON D2H'. DTH SERVICE IS A MODE BY WHI CH TELEVISION SIGNALS ARE PROVIDED DIRECTLY AT THE HOME OF THE SU BSCRIBERS, WITHOUT PASSING THROUGH ANY INTERMEDIARY. THE SET-TOP BOX A T THE PREMISES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS RECEIVES SUCH SIGNALS DIRECTLY THRO UGH THE DISH ANTENNA AND SUCH SIGNALS ARE VIEWED ON THE TELEVISION BY TH E SUBSCRIBER. AS THE WORK OF INSTALLING THE SET-TOP BOXES AND ANTENNA HA S TO BE CARRIED OUT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT SUBSCRIBERS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT/ AGREEMENT WITH VARIOUS PER SONS [INSTALLATION SERVICE PROVIDERS (ISPS)]. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF DET AILS IN THIS REGARD WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORK RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF HARDWARE AT THE CUSTOMER'S/SUBSCRIBER'S ITA NO.7047/MUM/2012 AND OT HER APPEALS M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED PREMISES IS CARRIED OUT BY A T ECHNICALLY SKILLED PERSON AS THE SOFTWARE IS TO BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH T HE TV SET TO PROVIDE THE DTH SERVICES AND OTHER TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE A LSO TO BE RENDERED. WE OBSERVE THAT THE WORK OF INSTALLATION OF SET-TOP BOXES AND ANTENNA AT THE PREMISES OF THE END-USER IS GIVEN AS PER THE CO NTRACT WITH INSTALLATION SERVICE PROVIDERS (ISPS). THE JOB OF THE INSTALLATI ON SERVICE PROVIDER IS TO GO TO THE PREMISES OF THE SUBSCRIBER, TO INSTALL DI SH ANTENNA AND SET-TOP BOX AND CONNECT THEM TO THE TELEVISION OF THE SUBSC RIBER. THE INSTALLATION ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 8 SERVICE PROVIDER HAS TO CONNECT THE SET-TOP BOX TO THE TELEVISION BY MAKING FEW BASIC WIRING CONNECTIONS. IT DOES NOT RE QUIRE ANY SPECIAL TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OR ANY TECHNICAL DEGREE AND IT CAN BE DONE BY ANY SOUND PERSON ON READING THROUGH THE INSTALLATION MA NUAL. ALSO, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC QUALIFICATION OR RECOGNIZED COURSE REQU IRED FOR INSTALLATION SERVICE PROVIDER TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR INSTALLATIO N OF DISH AND SET-TOP BOX. THEY ARE GIVEN BASIC TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONS FOR A SHORT PERIOD TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF INSTALLATION SO THAT THEY CAN APPLY THE SAME AT THE PLACE OF THE SUBSCRIBER. ACCORDINGLY, T HE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.194C OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE THREADBARE AND AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HELD THAT WORK OF I NSTALLATION OF SET-TOP BOX AMOUNTS TO 'WORKS CONTRACT. THE DETAILED FINDIN G SO RECORDED BY CIT(A) ARE AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. DR BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) HOLDING THAT INSTALLATION OF SET-TOP BOX AMOUNTS TO WORKS CONTRACT AND NO ITA NO.7047/MUM/2012 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. VIDE OCON D2H LIMITED TECHNICAL EXPERTISE ARE REQUIRED SO AS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE IT ACT. 12. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO SE RVICE PROVIDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF STB AND DISH ANTENNA IS IN THE NATURE OF WORKS CONTRACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194 C OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CON SIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SERVICE CHARGES U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 /01/ 2020 ITA NO.7403/MUM/2018 DISH TV INDIA LTD. 9 SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 29/01/2020 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//