Itxa/796/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-2 v. M/S. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 796 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income-Tax .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. F. Irani a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 16[th] SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. 1.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961challenges the order dated 30[th] March, 2016 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.The Revenue has urged the following questions of law for ourconsideration :- “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that theplacement fees / carriage fees paid to cable operators / MSO/DTH Operators are payments for work contract covered u/s194C and not fees for technical services u/s 194J, without appreciating that the services rendered by the assessee aretechnical in nature ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that theuplinking charges paid to TV-18 India Ltd. for up-linking itschannels / signals from TV-18’s up-linking centre are paymentsfor work contract covered u/s 194C and not fees towardsroyalty u/s 194J, without appreciating that the servicesreceived by assessee are technical in nature ? (c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that thepayment for production of programme constitutes payment forwork u/s 194C and not fees for royalty and technical servicesu/s 194J, without appreciating that such payments are innature of royalty and technical fees ? (d)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was correct in accepting the claimof the assessee that tax was deductible under Section 194C onplacement fees / carriage fees by treating it as contract workby restoring to interpretative reasoning and not under section194J of the I.T. Act without appreciating the definition of feesfor technical services given in section 194J and withoutappreciating that as per the settled principle of jurisprudence,this exercise is required only when the law is unclear? (e)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting theorder of the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee isnot in default u/s 201(1) in respect of the amount of tax whichhas not been deducted from the payments made under therequired sections and that the assessee is not liable for levy ofinterest under section 201(1A)?” 3.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing in support of theappeal very fairly states that the identical questions had been raisedby the Revenue from an order of the Tribunal dated 14[th] October,2015 relating to Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in respect ofthe same respondent. The Revenue had filed two appeals beingIncome Tax Appeal Nos. 1410 of 2016 and 1409 of 2016 from theorder dated 14[th] October, 2015 of the Tribunal in respect of theaforesaid two assessment years. All the aforesaid questions weredismissed by this Court by its order dated 10[th] January, 2019 as notgiving rise to any substantial question of law and thus, notentertained. 4.Therefore, for the reasons indicated in our order dated 10[th] January, 2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1410 of 2016 and1409 of 2016, these questions also do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Thus, not entertained. 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)