2009 (6) TMI 622 - AT - Income Tax

TDS - Contractor or professional fees - So far as Section 194 J is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that two Sections cannot be applied if it is held that the payment is covered u/s. 194C, then again, the A.O cannot treat the said payment as a payment attracting the provisions of Section 194J also - no relationship of a Principal and a contractor is created between the assessee company and film producers/contractors, but all agreements are finance agreements with unique features to participate in the surplus by taking the risk of the losses also - the agreements entered into between the assessee company and producers and directors of the different films and T.V. Serials are in the nature of finance agreements, the said are out of the provisions of Section 194C - Even if the assessee has made payment directly to any actor or director or any person connected with the film making then it is only out of the composite agreement entered into for financing the film project and it cannot be said that the payment made directly by the assessee company attracted the provisions of Section 194J Assessee is not a deemed defaulter u/s. 201(1) of the Act, there is no question of levy of interest also u/s. 201(1A) of the Act - In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to deduct tax under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Liability to deduct tax under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of interest levied under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Deduct Tax Under Section 194C:

The primary issue across the appeals was whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act in respect of payments made to film producers and directors. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated the assessee as a defaulter for not deducting tax at source, raising demands under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).

The assessee contended that the payments were advances for financing film production and not payments to contractors or sub-contractors, thus not attracting Section 194C. The film producers and directors were not considered contractors but were seen as independent entities creating films with the assessee acting as a financier.

The CIT(A) partially accepted this argument, holding that in some agreements, the provisions of Section 194C were not applicable as there was no principal-contractor relationship. However, for the majority of agreements, the CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision.

Upon further review, the Appellate Tribunal examined the agreements and concluded that the relationship between the assessee and the film producers/directors was not that of a principal and contractor. The agreements were primarily financial arrangements with the assessee acquiring rights in the films as security for the finance provided. The Tribunal noted that the film producers/directors retained significant control and shared in the surplus, indicating a principal-to-principal relationship rather than a principal-to-contractor relationship.

2. Liability to Deduct Tax Under Section 194J:

The A.O. also invoked Section 194J concerning payments made to a leading actor, Mr. Aamir Khan, on behalf of Maya Productions. The CIT(A) held that if payments were covered under Section 194C, Section 194J would not apply.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the provisions of Section 194J were not applicable, reinforcing that the agreements were financial in nature and did not constitute payments for professional services under Section 194J.

3. Validity of Interest Levied Under Section 201(1A):

Given the Tribunal's findings that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under Sections 194C and 194J, the interest levied under Section 201(1A) was also invalid. The Tribunal deleted the interest charges and canceled the orders passed by the A.O. under Sections 201 and 201(1A) to the extent sustained by the CIT(A).

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee, concluding that the provisions of Sections 194C and 194J were not applicable to the payments made under the agreements in question. Consequently, the assessee was not deemed a defaulter under Section 201(1), and the interest levied under Section 201(1A) was also deleted.