Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Times Globalbroadcasting Co. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2016WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)-2 .. Appellant v/s. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the appellant Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Divesh Chawla I/b Mr. AtulJasani for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 3[rd] DECEMBER, 2018. 1.These Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) challenge the common order dated 27[th] May, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating toAssessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2.The Revenue has urged the following re-framed question of lawfor our consideration :- (i)Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the placementfees / carriage fees paid to cable operators / MSO / DTH Operators are payments for work contract covered u/s 194C andnot fees for technical service u/s 194J, without appreciating thatthe service received by the assessee are technical in nature ? 3.Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against theRevenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Times GlobalBroadcasting Co. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.399 of 2016) renderedon 14[th] August, 2018. The aforesaid order was passed in an appealfiled by the Revenue from the common order of the Tribunal forAssessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.In view of the above, the question of law as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5.Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)