Tds-2, Mumbai v. Utv Entertainment Television Ltd.[1] In Viewof The Fact That The Issues Stand Concluded By The Decision Of Thiscourt, The Questions As Proposed Do Not Give Rise

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1384 OF 2016WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1437 OF 2016WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2016WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1448 OF 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS-2… Appellant V/s. UTV News Ltd. … Respondent --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.R.Murlidhar with Mr.B.G.Yewale i/by M/s Rajesh Shah & Co.for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2019. P.C.:- 1.These four appeals challenge the common order dated 16[th]October, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (theTribunal). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2008-09. Priya Soparkar 2.The Revenue urges the following common questions of law for our consideration: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT is correct inholding that the placement fees/carriage fees paidto cable operators/MSO/DTH operators arepayments for work contract covered u/s 194C andnot fees for technical services u/s 194J, withoutappreciating that the services received by Assesseeare technical in nature? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT was correct inaccepting the claim of the Assessee that tax wasdeductible under section 194C on placementfees/carriage fees by treating it as contract work byresorting to interpretative reasoning and not undersection 194J of the I.T. Act without appreciatingthe definition of fees for technical services given insection 194J and without appreciating that as perthe settled principle of jurisprudence, this exerciseis required only when the law is unclear? 3.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.Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issues raised herein stand concluded infavour of the respondent and against the appellant-revenue by the Priya Soparkar 332 itxa 1384-16 and ors-o-s decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-2, Mumbai Vs. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd.[1] In viewof the fact that the issues stand concluded by the decision of thisCourt, the questions as proposed do not give rise to anysubstantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4.Accordingly, the tax appeals are dismissed. No order as tocosts. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….