VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4608/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2006-07 and 2011-12. The primary issues revolved around the non-grant of additional interest on refunds under section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act and the set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The tribunal consolidated the appeals for convenience and addressed the common issues together.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37999 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323 (SC))
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KANUPRIYA DAMOR
• Assessee Lawyers: MOKSHA MEHTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Transfer pricing; Depreciation; TDS; Rectification of order; Unabsorbed depreciation; FORM 26AS
• Section: 250; 263; 153; 90; 234B; 244A; 264; 72

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 4606 & 4608/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2011-12 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., One Unity Centre, Tower-4, Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400013. Vs. Asst. CIT-16(1) 4th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd., Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAACM 9164 E Appellant Respondent ITA No. 4658/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. CIT, 439, Aykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Maine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., 6th floor, Zion Biz, Ville Parle (East), Mumbai. PAN NO. AAACM 9164 E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Moksha Mehta Revenue by : Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/01/2025 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 directed against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. The cross appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessment year 2011 against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). common issue in dispute same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Non-grant of additional 1. erred in rejecting the ground of the Appellant of non additional interest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percent, from date on which time limit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the order of Hon'ble Income 153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided documentary proof vis ITAT order to the AO and Principal CIT. 2. should have called for the records from AO to verify the date of receipt of order of ITAT by the AO instead of summarily rejecting the claim of the Appellant. Set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 directed against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. The cross appeals of the and the Revenue for assessment year 2011 against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). common issue in dispute is involved in these appeals, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 07. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced grant of additional interest on refund u/s. 244A (1 rejecting the ground of the Appellant of non additional interest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percent, from date on which time limit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the order of Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellant Tribunal ('ITAT') exp 153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided documentary proof vis-à-vis service of the ITAT order to the AO and Principal CIT. 2. should have called for the records from AO to verify the date of eceipt of order of ITAT by the AO instead of summarily rejecting the claim of the Appellant. Set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is directed against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. The cross appeals of the and the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 are directed against order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). A in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed off by way of this for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 07. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced interest on refund u/s. 244A (1A): rejecting the ground of the Appellant of non-grant of additional interest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percent, from date on which time limit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the Tax Appellant Tribunal ('ITAT') expired u/s. 153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the vis service of the 2. should have called for the records from AO to verify the date of eceipt of order of ITAT by the AO instead of summarily rejecting the Set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed 3. erred in not directing to grant correct amount of set off of brought forward business lo 14,29,87.288 instead of set off granted of Rs. 12,53,12,905 detailed working provided. 4. Failed to appreciate that merely because the rectification application dated 11 March 2011 ground to reject set off of correct amount of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing 5. erred in alleging non response to the opportunity for video conferencing granted without appreciating the responses filed by the Appellant seeking the opportunity. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company primarily engaged in broadcasting of television channels from India which includes marketing of advertising airtime on these channels and distribution of the channels. The addressing the dispute passed an order giving effect of the ITAT for assessment year consideration on wherein he computed refund to be granted to the assessee at Rs.14,81,24,720/-comprising of interest u/s 244A of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs 7,32,32,565/ Relevant part of the OGE dated 30/09/2022 is reproduced as under: TAX CALCULATIONS 38. GROSS TAX 39. REBATE 40. SURCHARGE 41. EDUCATION CESS Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 3. erred in not directing to grant correct amount of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 14,29,87.288 instead of set off granted of Rs. 12,53,12,905 detailed working provided. 4. Failed to appreciate that merely because the rectification application dated 11 March 2011 was not disposed off by the AO can't be the ground to reject set off of correct amount of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act t of opportunity of virtual hearing 5. erred in alleging non-receipt of any reply from the Appellant in response to the opportunity for video conferencing granted without appreciating the responses filed by the Appellant seeking the stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company primarily engaged in broadcasting of television channels from India which includes marketing of advertising airtime on these channels and distribution of the channels. The facts of the case dispute before us are that the Assessing Officer order giving effect (OGE) to the order dated for assessment year consideration on wherein he computed refund to be granted to the assessee at comprising of interest u/s 244A of the Income amounting to Rs 7,32,32,565/- and Rs. 1,38,22,830/ Relevant part of the OGE dated 30/09/2022 is reproduced as TAX CALCULATIONS GROSS TAX 81,26,751 REBATE SURCHARGE 8,12,675 EDUCATION CESS 1,78,789 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 3. erred in not directing to grant correct amount of set off of brought unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 14,29,87.288 instead of set off granted of Rs. 12,53,12,905 ignoring the 4. Failed to appreciate that merely because the rectification application y the AO can't be the ground to reject set off of correct amount of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section receipt of any reply from the Appellant in response to the opportunity for video conferencing granted without appreciating the responses filed by the Appellant seeking the stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company primarily engaged in broadcasting of television channels from India which includes marketing of advertising airtime on these facts of the case for are that the Assessing Officer dated 03/09/2021 for assessment year consideration on 30/09/2022 , wherein he computed refund to be granted to the assessee at comprising of interest u/s 244A of the Income- and Rs. 1,38,22,830/-. Relevant part of the OGE dated 30/09/2022 is reproduced as 81,26,751 0 8,12,675 1,78,789 42. TAX CREDIT 115JAA/115JD 43. RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S 91 44. NET TAX 45. INTEREST U/S 234A 46. DELAY PERIOD 47. INTEREST U/S 234B 48. INTEREST U/S 234C 49. GROSS DEMAND TAXES PAYMENT DETAILS 50. TDS/TCS 51. ADVANCE TAX 52. SELF ASSESSMENT TAX 53. REGULAR ASSESSMENT TAX 54. AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED 55. TOTAL TAX PAID DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DETAILS 56. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND INTEREST PAYABLE ON DISTRIBUTED PROFITS 57. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND INTEREST PAID FINAL DETAILS 58. TOTAL TAX AND INTEREST PAYABLE 59. INTEREST U/S 244A 60. INTEREST MADE U/S 244A RECOVERED Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. TAX CREDIT 115JAA/115JD RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S NET TAX 91,18,215 INTEREST U/S 234A DELAY PERIOD INTEREST U/S 234B 16,44,035 INTEREST U/S 234C 50,511 GROSS DEMAND 1,08,12,761 TAXES PAYMENT DETAILS TDS/TCS 57,00,171 ADVANCE TAX SELF ASSESSMENT TAX 11,06,314 REGULAR ASSESSMENT TAX 14,79,05,763 AMOUNT ALREADY REFUNDED TOTAL TAX PAID 9,95,27,749 DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DETAILS ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND INTEREST PAYABLE ON DISTRIBUTED PROFITS ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX AND INTEREST PAID 0 FINAL DETAILS TOTAL TAX AND INTEREST PAYABLE -8,87,14,988 INTEREST U/S 244A -7,32,32,565 INTEREST MADE U/S 244A RECOVERED -1,38,22,830 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 0 0 91,18,215 0 0 16,44,035 50,511 1,08,12,761 57,00,171 0 11,06,314 14,79,05,763 0 9,95,27,749 0 61. DELAY PERIOD ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE 62. INTEREST U/S 234D 63. INTEREST U/S 220 DEMAND /REFUND 64. NET AMOUNT PAYABLE / REFUNDABLE 3.1 A copy said provided to the assessee on 14.10.2022 via e provisions of section 153(5) of the Act, t mandated to give effect to the order of the ITAT within three months from the date on which ITAT order Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax except the case be made. Accordingly, the assessee contended that order of ITAT has not been given within three months of its receipt by the CIT or PCIT, it is entitled of the Act for a period of 182 days from 01. on such refund granted. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in dispute as under: “The contention of the Appellant has been that the order of the Hon'ble ITAT was passed on 03.09.2021 and the same was served on learned AO as well as the Principal CIT Range 8, Mumbai in December 2021. Since the order of the Hon'ble ITAT has been served in 2021, and there is no fresh assessment to be made pursuant to Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. DELAY PERIOD ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE INTEREST U/S 234D 0 INTEREST U/S 220 0 DEMAND /REFUND NET AMOUNT PAYABLE / REFUNDABLE -14,81,24,720 said order giving effect dated 30/09/2022 provided to the assessee on 14.10.2022 via e-mail s of section 153(5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer mandated to give effect to the order of the ITAT within three months from the date on which ITAT order is received by the relevant Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner of the case where fresh assessment be made. Accordingly, the assessee contended that order of ITAT has not been given within three months of its receipt it is entitled for additional interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act for a period of 182 days from 01.04.2022 to 30.09.2022 on such refund granted. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in The contention of the Appellant has been that the order of the Hon'ble ITAT was passed on 03.09.2021 and the same was served on learned AO as well as the Principal CIT Range 8, Mumbai in December 2021. Since the order of the Hon'ble ITAT has been served in the office of the concerned PCIT by December 2021, and there is no fresh assessment to be made pursuant to Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 effect dated 30/09/2022 was mail. As per the he Assessing Officer is mandated to give effect to the order of the ITAT within three months received by the relevant Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner of assessment is required to be made. Accordingly, the assessee contended that effect of the order of ITAT has not been given within three months of its receipt additional interest u/s 244A(1A) 04.2022 to 30.09.2022 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in The contention of the Appellant has been that the order of the Hon'ble ITAT was passed on 03.09.2021 and the same was served on learned AO as well as the Principal CIT Range 8, Mumbai in December 2021. Since the order of the Hon'ble ITAT the office of the concerned PCIT by December 2021, and there is no fresh assessment to be made pursuant to Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 03.09.2021, the provisions of Section 153(5) are very clear that the order giving effect to such ITAT's order should be g Hon'ble ITAT's order was served in the office of the concerned PCIT. However the appellant has not been able to provide any documentary proof in favour of his argument. The contention of the appellant that order Range 8 in December 2021 is not supported by any documentary proof and in view of the same Ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse relevant material on record. for giving effect to the order of the ITAT, except fresh assessment within the stipulated period of three or six months from the receipt of the order of the ITAT. For ready reference the relevant provisio is reproduced as under: “(5) Where effect to an order under section 260 or given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissio case may be, the order under passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be] : Provided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period, for reasons beyond his control, the Principal Commissioner or Co such request in writing from the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: [Provided further that where an orde section 254 or 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 03.09.2021, the provisions of Section 153(5) are very clear that the order giving effect to such ITAT's order should be given within 3 months from the date on which Hon'ble ITAT's order was served in the office of the concerned PCIT. However the appellant has not been able to provide any documentary proof in favour of his argument. The contention of the appellant that order was served on AO and Principal CIT Range 8 in December 2021 is not supported by any documentary proof and in view of the same Ground of appeal of the appellant is We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse l on record. The section 153(5) of the Act provides for giving effect to the order of the ITAT, except fresh assessment within the stipulated period of three or six months from the receipt of the order of the ITAT. For ready reference the relevant provisio is reproduced as under: (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the Provided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period, for reasons beyond his control, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on receipt of such request in writing from the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: [Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section requires verification of any issue by way of submission of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 03.09.2021, the provisions of Section 153(5) are very clear that the order giving effect to such ITAT's iven within 3 months from the date on which Hon'ble ITAT's order was served in the office of the concerned PCIT. However the appellant has not been able to provide any documentary proof in favour of his argument. The contention of was served on AO and Principal CIT Range 8 in December 2021 is not supported by any documentary proof and in view of the same Ground of appeal of the appellant is We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the The section 153(5) of the Act provides for giving effect to the order of the ITAT, except fresh assessment within the stipulated period of three or six months from the receipt of the order of the ITAT. For ready reference the relevant provision section 254 or is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a section , as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief ner, as the section 264 is passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the Provided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period, for reasons beyond his mmissioner on receipt of such request in writing from the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an section 250 or section requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the 254 or section 260 shall be made within the time specified in sub 4.1 Therefore, the Assessing officer has to comply with the limitation of three months or six months, whichever apply, while giving effect to the order of the ITAT. If the AO fails in doing so, then, the assessee is eligible for additional interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act on the refund if any arises to him. The relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: “(1A) In a case where a refund an order under section 262 or otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under s amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub to the date on which the refund is granted:] 4[Provided that where proceedings for assessment or reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional assessee under this sub date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing Officer in accordance with and subject to provisions of sub section 245 and ending is withheld] , shall be excluded.] 4.2 In the instant case t reason that the date of the service of the order of the ITAT CIT or CIT was not mentioned assessee presumed that order of the ITAT must have been served on the PCIT or CIT on date when it was issued, and therefore, the date Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).]” , the Assessing officer has to comply with the limitation of three months or six months, whichever apply, while the order of the ITAT. If the AO fails in doing so, then, the assessee is eligible for additional interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act on the refund if any arises to him. The relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: (1A) In a case where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section 153 to the date on which the refund is granted:] [Provided that where proceedings for assessment or reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional interest payable to such assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing Officer in accordance with and subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of and ending 4a[with the date up to which such refund is withheld] , shall be excluded.]” In the instant case the sole issue of dispute is due to the reason that the date of the service of the order of the ITAT CIT or CIT was not mentioned in the order giving effect. The assessee presumed that order of the ITAT must have been served on date when it was issued, and therefore, the date Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the section section 264 , the Assessing officer has to comply with the limitation of three months or six months, whichever apply, while the order of the ITAT. If the AO fails in doing so, then, the assessee is eligible for additional interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act on the refund if any arises to him. The relevant part of the arises as a result of giving effect to section 260 or , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date section 153 [Provided that where proceedings for assessment or reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing interest payable to such section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing Officer in section (2) of [with the date up to which such refund he sole issue of dispute is due to the reason that the date of the service of the order of the ITAT on the Pr. in the order giving effect. The assessee presumed that order of the ITAT must have been served on date when it was issued, and therefore, the date on which refund issued being beyond the prescribed in section 153(5), the assessee was entitled for additional amount of interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act. of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has filed a report from the Assess that said order of the Tribunal was received in the office of the Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai on 28.01.2022. In view of the date of the receipt, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify compliance of the provisions of section 153(5) of the Act and allow the interest in terms of section 244A(1A) of the Act in accordance with law. The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The ground Nos off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: “21. I have gone through the OGE order and the computation part of the OGE order, the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant and the supporting documents submitted in the form of Paper Book. The contention of the Appellant is that as per the latest records, the available brought forward the latest orders for the relevant years for which the loss belongs) for set off against the assessed income for the year under consideration is R$ 14,29,87,288. The learned ACIT has considered the losses at 12,53,12,905 which was computed as per the rectification order dated 25 February 2011. However, the contention of the applicant is that the learned ACIT did not consider the rectification application filed dated 11 March 2011 by Appellant pursuant to rectifica 2011. As the said application has never been disposed of by the assessing officer hence there is no question why the figures coming in it should be Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. on which refund issued being beyond the period of three months as prescribed in section 153(5), the assessee was entitled for additional amount of interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act. Now during the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has filed a report from the Assessing Officer wherein he has submitted that said order of the Tribunal was received in the office of the Pr. 8, Mumbai on 28.01.2022. In view of the date of the receipt, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify compliance of the provisions of 153(5) of the Act and allow the interest in terms of section 244A(1A) of the Act in accordance with law. The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical s. 3 &4 of the appeal relate to the issue of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: I have gone through the OGE order and the computation part of the OGE order, the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant and the supporting documents submitted in the form of Paper Book. The contention of the Appellant is that as per the latest records, the available brought forward losses (based on the assessed income as per the latest orders for the relevant years for which the loss belongs) for set off against the assessed income for the year under consideration is R$ 14,29,87,288. The learned ACIT has considered the losses at 3,12,905 which was computed as per the rectification order dated 25 February 2011. However, the contention of the applicant is that the learned ACIT did not consider the rectification application filed dated 11 March 2011 by Appellant pursuant to rectification order dated 25 February 2011. As the said application has never been disposed of by the assessing officer hence there is no question why the figures coming in it should be Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 of three months as prescribed in section 153(5), the assessee was entitled for additional Now during the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has ing Officer wherein he has submitted that said order of the Tribunal was received in the office of the Pr. 8, Mumbai on 28.01.2022. In view of the date of the receipt, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify compliance of the provisions of 153(5) of the Act and allow the interest in terms of section 244A(1A) of the Act in accordance with law. The ground Nos. 1 & 2 of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical of the appeal relate to the issue of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in I have gone through the OGE order and the computation sheet forming part of the OGE order, the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant and the supporting documents submitted in the form of Paper Book. The contention of the Appellant is that as per the latest records, the losses (based on the assessed income as per the latest orders for the relevant years for which the loss belongs) for set- off against the assessed income for the year under consideration is R$ 14,29,87,288. The learned ACIT has considered the losses at 3,12,905 which was computed as per the rectification order dated 25 February 2011. However, the contention of the applicant is that the learned ACIT did not consider the rectification application filed dated 11 tion order dated 25 February 2011. As the said application has never been disposed of by the assessing officer hence there is no question why the figures coming in it should be considered. In view of the above the Ground of appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed. 4.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It is the contention of the assessee that rectification application of the assessee against the rectification order dated 25.0 disposed off thus resulting into lower amount of carry forward of the losses. The Ld. DR could not provide any ready reply regarding disposing off rectification application of the assessee dated 11.03.2011. In view of the above facts, we fe restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claims made in the rectification application dated 11.03.2011 and compute the correct amount of brought forward business losses/ unabsorbed depreciati Accordingly, the ground statistical purposes. The ground No. 5 of the appeal was not pressed and same is dismissed as 5. Now, we take up appeal of the assessee for assessm 2011-12. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Non-grant of additional interest on refund u/s. 244A (1A): 1. erred in rejecting the ground of the Appellant of non interest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percent, from date on which time limit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the order of Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellant Tribunal ( date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. considered. In view of the above the Ground of appeal filed by the dismissed.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It is the contention of the assessee that rectification application of the assessee dated 11.03.2011 against the rectification order dated 25.02.2011 has not been disposed off thus resulting into lower amount of carry forward of the losses. The Ld. DR could not provide any ready reply regarding disposing off rectification application of the assessee dated 11.03.2011. In view of the above facts, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claims made in the rectification application dated 11.03.2011 and compute the correct amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation eligible to the assessee. ground Nos. 3 & 4 of appeal are also allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 5 of the appeal was not pressed and same is dismissed as infructuous. we take up appeal of the assessee for assessm 12. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as grant of additional interest on refund u/s. 244A (1A): 1. erred in rejecting the ground of the Appellant of non-grant of additional interest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percent, from date on which time limit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the order of Hon'ble Tax Appellant Tribunal ('ITAT') expired u/s. 153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 considered. In view of the above the Ground of appeal filed by the We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It is the contention of the assessee dated 11.03.2011 11 has not been disposed off thus resulting into lower amount of carry forward of the losses. The Ld. DR could not provide any ready reply regarding disposing off rectification application of the assessee dated el it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claims made in the rectification application dated 11.03.2011 and compute the correct amount of brought forward to the assessee. also allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 5 of the appeal was not we take up appeal of the assessee for assessment year 12. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as grant of additional interest on refund u/s. 244A (1A): grant of additional interest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percent, from date on which time limit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the order of Hon'ble 'ITAT') expired u/s. 153(5) of the Act to the date of grant of refund alleging that the Appellant has not provided documentary proof vis Principal CIT. 2. should have called for the records from AO to verify th order of ITAT by the Appellant. Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing 3. erred in alleging non receipt of any reply from the Appellant in response to the opportunity for video responses filed by the Ap 5.1 The ground No ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2006 relating to claim of additi 244A(1A) of the Act. Since the ITAT has passed a common order for AY 2006-07 and AY 2011 28.01.2022 and therefore, interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act has to be computed in the manner of 2006-07. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is decided mutatis mutandis. The ground No. 3 was not pressed and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up appeal 2011-12. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the Supreme Court decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323 (SC)), the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) claimed by t the claim was not specifically made in the return of income but is otherwise substantiated by the relevant TDS certificates and supporting documents?\" Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. documentary proof vis-à-vis service of the ITAT order to the AO and 2. should have called for the records from AO to verify the date of receipt of order of ITAT by the AO instead of summarily rejecting the claim of the grant of opportunity of virtual hearing 3. erred in alleging non receipt of any reply from the Appellant in response to the opportunity for video conferencing granted without appreciating responses filed by the Appellant seeking the opportunity. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are . 1 and 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2006 relating to claim of additional interest refund 244A(1A) of the Act. Since the ITAT has passed a common order for 07 and AY 2011-12 which was served on the Pr. CIT on 28.01.2022 and therefore, interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act has to be computed in the manner of direction given for assessment year 07. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is decided mutatis mutandis. The ground No. 3 was not pressed and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous. we take up appeal of Revenue for the assessment year 12. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as 1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the Supreme Court decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323 (SC)), the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) claimed by the assessee can be allowed if the claim was not specifically made in the return of income but is otherwise substantiated by the relevant TDS certificates and supporting Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 vis service of the ITAT order to the AO and e date of receipt of AO instead of summarily rejecting the claim of the 3. erred in alleging non receipt of any reply from the Appellant in response cing granted without appreciating the identical to the . 1 and 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2006-07 onal interest refund under section 244A(1A) of the Act. Since the ITAT has passed a common order for 12 which was served on the Pr. CIT on 28.01.2022 and therefore, interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act has to direction given for assessment year 07. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is decided mutatis mutandis. The ground No. 3 was not pressed and therefore same is for the assessment year 12. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as 1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the Supreme Court decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323 (SC)), the he assessee can be allowed if the claim was not specifically made in the return of income but is otherwise substantiated by the relevant TDS certificates and supporting 2. The Ld. CIT (A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary at the time of hearing 6.1 The issue in dispute in the grounds raised relate to granting credit for tax deducted at source of Rs.24,49,56,319/ claim of the assessee of Rs.26,40,46,810/ credit of Rs.1,19,19,491/ issue in dispute is reproduced as under: “DECISION 18. I have gone through the OGE order and the computation sheet forming part of the OGE order, the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant and the supporting documents submitted in the form o Book. The Appellant has claimed TDS credit of Rs 24,49,56,319 in its revised return of income and it claimed an additional TDS credit of Rs TDS credit of Rs. 1,90,90,491 (TDS credit appearing in latest form 26AS for AY 2011-12 of Rs 26,40,46,810 le order of Rs 24,49,56,319), as the corresponding income was offered to tax, by way of rectification application, however the AO while passing the OGE to Hon'ble ITAT's order did not grant such additional TDS credit cla the appellant. 19. The contention of the Appellant is that the corresponding income in relation to the claim for the additional TDS credit has been offered to tax in the year under consideration, hence such additional TDS credit has to be allowed in the year under consideration. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the Appellant and if the corresponding income is offered by the appellant during the year and TDS is duly deducted and reflected, the same shall be allowed. If the claim i the AO is upheld 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has only issued direction to verify the claim of the assessee of the TDS and allow in accordance with law. The contention of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. CIT (A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary at the time of hearing he issue in dispute in the grounds raised relate to granting credit for tax deducted at source of Rs.24,49,56,319/ claim of the assessee of Rs.26,40,46,810/- thereby granting short credit of Rs.1,19,19,491/-. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on th issue in dispute is reproduced as under: 18. I have gone through the OGE order and the computation sheet forming the OGE order, the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant and the supporting documents submitted in the form o Book. The Appellant has claimed TDS credit of Rs 24,49,56,319 in its revised return of income and it claimed an additional TDS credit of Rs TDS credit of Rs. 1,90,90,491 (TDS credit appearing in latest form 26AS for AY 12 of Rs 26,40,46,810 less TDS credit granted by AO in the OGE order of Rs 24,49,56,319), as the corresponding income was offered to tax, by way of rectification application, however the AO while passing the OGE to Hon'ble ITAT's order did not grant such additional TDS credit cla 19. The contention of the Appellant is that the corresponding income in the claim for the additional TDS credit has been offered to tax in the year under consideration, hence such additional TDS credit has to be n the year under consideration. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the Appellant and if the corresponding income is offered by the appellant during the year and TDS is duly deducted and reflected, the same shall be allowed. If the claim is found incorrect then the action of the AO is upheld.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has only issued direction to verify the claim of the assessee of the TDS and allow in accordance with law. The contention of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 11 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 CIT (A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may he issue in dispute in the grounds raised relate to granting credit for tax deducted at source of Rs.24,49,56,319/- as against thereby granting short . The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the 18. I have gone through the OGE order and the computation sheet forming the OGE order, the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant and the supporting documents submitted in the form of Paper Book. The Appellant has claimed TDS credit of Rs 24,49,56,319 in its revised return of income and it claimed an additional TDS credit of Rs TDS credit of Rs. 1,90,90,491 (TDS credit appearing in latest form 26AS for AY ss TDS credit granted by AO in the OGE order of Rs 24,49,56,319), as the corresponding income was offered to tax, by way of rectification application, however the AO while passing the OGE to Hon'ble ITAT's order did not grant such additional TDS credit claimed by 19. The contention of the Appellant is that the corresponding income in the claim for the additional TDS credit has been offered to tax in the year under consideration, hence such additional TDS credit has to be n the year under consideration. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the Appellant and if the corresponding income is offered by the appellant during the year and TDS is duly deducted and reflected, s found incorrect then the action of We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has only issued direction to verify the claim of the assessee of the TDS and allow in accordance with law. The contention of the Revenue is that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) such claim of TDS cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer if such claim specifically in the return of income. We ar bonafide claim can be entertained by the appellate authorities as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India (supra). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has accep directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. has already not given effect to t directed to comply and give effect to finding of ld CIT(A) under our directions. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/01/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) such claim of TDS cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer if such claim specifically in the return of income. We are of the opinion that such fide claim can be entertained by the appellate authorities as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India (supra). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. has already not given effect to the direction of ld CIT(A), then he is directed to comply and give effect to finding of ld CIT(A) under our The ground of appeal of the Revenue is accordingly appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 23/01/2025. - (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 12 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) such claim of TDS cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer if such claim was not made e of the opinion that such fide claim can be entertained by the appellate authorities as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ted the claim and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. If the AO he direction of ld CIT(A), then he is directed to comply and give effect to finding of ld CIT(A) under our The ground of appeal of the Revenue is accordingly appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. /01/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 13 ITA No. 4606, 4608 & 4658/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "