Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds),Kolkata v. Media Worldwide Pvt. Ltd

OD-22 ITAT/193/2018 IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/1462/2018) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),KOLKATA -Versus- MEDIA WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD. Appearance:Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17[th] December, 2021. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) isdirected against the order dated 12[th] May, 2017 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’in short) in ITA No.2057/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12.The revenue has framed the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: (i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Kolkata was correct in holding that the services likecarriage, uplinking, downlinking, broadband etc. were not covered under specific Section 194J of the Income TaxAct, 1961 but were under more general Section 194C?(ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Kolkata erred in law in holding that the provisions ofSection 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicablealthough the payments are not made by the assessee forany of the category of the work as defined in Section194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Kolkata erred in law in not holding that the case of theassessee fails within the parameters of Section 194J ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as the payments aremade by the assessee in respect of services like channelcarriage fee, uplinking, bandwidth charges which aredefining royalty payments which are covered under Section194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counselfor the appellant/revenue and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel forthe respondent/assessee. It is not disputed before us that identical question oflaw in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 wasdecided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court inCommissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I (TDS) vs. Media World Wide(P.) Ltd. reported in [2020] 120 taxmann.com 423 (Kolkata) and theappeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The said decision hasbecome final and binding on the revenue. The identical question was also decided against the revenue in the case of Commissionerof Income Tax, TDS 2 vs. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd.reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 314 (SC). Thus, following the above decision, the appeal filed bythe revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law areanswered against the revenue. The connected application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2018, OldNo.GA/1462/2018) also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./S.Das