Itxa/1508/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds-2 v. Viacom 18 Meida Pvt.ltd

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS-2… Appellant V/s. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.… Respondent --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.F.V.Irani i/by Mr.Atul Jasani for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2019. P.C.:- 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 14[th] October, 2015passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). Theimpugned order dated 14[th] October, 2015 is the common orderrelating to Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thisappeal relates to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.The Revenue urges the following questions of law for ourconsideration:- “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in holdingthat the placement fees/carriage fees paid to cableoperators/MSO/DTH Operators are payments for workcontract covered u/s 194C and not fees for technicalservices u/s 194J, without appreciating that theservices received by assessee are technical in nature? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT is correct inholding that the uplinking charges paid to TV-18India Ltd for uplinking its channels /signals fromTV-18's uplinking centre are payments for workcontract covered u/s 194C and not fees towardsroyalty u/s 194J, without appreciating that theservices received by assessee are technical innature? c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT is justified inholding that the payment for production ofprogrammes constitutes payment for work u/s 194Cand not fees for royalty and technical services u/s194J, without appreciating that such payments arein nature of royalty and technical fees? d)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT was justified inrejecting the order of the Assessing Officer byholding that the Assessee is not in default u/s201(1) in respect of the amount of tax which hasnot been deducted from the payments made underthe required sections and that the Assessee is notliable for levy of interest under section 201(1A)?” 3.It was pointed out to us that the commonimpugned order to the extent related to Assessment Years2009-10 and 2010-11 were challengedby the Revenuein this Court being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1409 Priya Soparkar 316 itxa 1508-16-o-s of 2016 and 1410 of 2016. This Court by an order dated 10[th]January, 2019 dismissed both the Revenue's appeal holding thatquestions do not give rise to any substantial question of law.Therefore, for the reasons indicated in the order dated 10[th]January, 2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos.1409 of 2016and 1410 of 2016. The question raised herein also do not giverise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….