Cement Co. Ltd v. C.i.t. 201 Itr 435 Is

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 991 OF 2008 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 991 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax- TDS. ..Appellant. V/s. M/s Shrinagar Cinemas Pvt Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr R. A. Vaishampayan, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr J. J. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr Birendra Saraf i/b Naik & Naik for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 24TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED: 24TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.:---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is seeking determination of the following three questions of law in this appeal. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provision of the Section 194C "for carrying out any work" in the light of the Apex Court ratio laid down in the case of Associate Cement Co. Ltd vs. C.I.T. 201 ITR 435 is not applicable in the case of Assessee? b) Whether the learned Members of the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of Section 194C are not applicable in the Assessee’s case because the Exhibitors did not perform any work for the Distributors and agreement between the Distributors and the Exhibitors was not a work contract within the meaning of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 194C or 194I of the Income-tax Act are not applicable in the Assessee’s case in the light of circulars issued by the C.B.D.T.? 3. We have perused the order of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2007. The basic issue in the above appeal is : whether the contract entered between the Respondent-Assessee who is the Executor of the films and the Distributor, both of them share the revenue by way of joint venture. The Tribunal in its finding has categorically stated that Section 194 (c) (3) only four categories have been identified for the use of the expression "work" and they are restricted only with regard to broadcasting and telecasting. Obviously, exhibition of the film would not fall within the sweep of "work". 4. The Tribunal has fully concurred with the finding of fact given by the CIT(A) holding that the contract involved does not fall in the joint venture. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit. Same is dismissed with costs. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limini. (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)(DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)