9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 587 - AT - Income TaxAddition of income - Royalty - The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the details of TDS deducted and paid from the above royalty payment in view of the provisions of section 40(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 - According to the Revenue since the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the royalty payment to M/s. CTFI, New York, therefore, the provisions of section 40(a) are attracted and such payment of royalty is not allowed as a deduction - Royalty has not been paid for any TV or radio broadcasting - The learned DR could not point out as to under which of the clauses of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act the payment of royalty falls so as to bring it into the definition of royalty - Appeal is allowed
Issues:
1. Disallowance of royalty payment under section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appellant's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A)-XI, Mumbai related to the disallowance of Rs.1,09,09,328 under section 40(a) for royalty payment made to M/s. Columbia Tristar Films of India. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to lack of TDS deduction. The appellant argued that the payment was not royalty as defined in the Act and provided details of the agreement with Vinod Mohindra. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the appellant failed to prove the payment was not royalty. The appellant contended that the payment did not fall under the definition of royalty for TDS purposes. The Tribunal examined the agreement clauses and the Act's definitions. It found that the payment did not meet the criteria of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) and hence, section 40(a) did not apply. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance, allowing the appeal. This case involved a dispute over the disallowance of royalty payment under section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment due to lack of TDS deduction, which was challenged by the appellant. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish that the payment was not royalty. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement clauses and statutory definitions to conclude that the payment did not meet the criteria of royalty as per the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
