2010 (12) TMI 684 - AT - Income Tax

Tax deducted at source - CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier years, holding that the provisions of S.194J are not applicable to the printing and processing charges paid by the assessee, deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in terms of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the CIT(A) has not examined the applicability of the TDS provisions in relation to contractual payments contained in S.194C of the Act. - Hence, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, with a direction to examine the applicability of provisions of S.194C and accordingly redecide the applicability of the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) - Revenue s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act for non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Hyderabad heard an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2006-07. The main issue revolved around the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act due to the non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee while making payments to laboratories for printing and processing charges related to film supply.

The Departmental Representative argued that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified, emphasizing that even if the charges were not considered technical services attracting Section 194J, they should still be seen as contractual payments falling under Section 194C, requiring TDS deduction. The representative contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance.

On the other hand, the assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s decision, citing a previous Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee for earlier years. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) correctly applied the previous ruling to exclude Section 194J, the applicability of Section 194C regarding contractual payments was not analyzed. As the lower authorities did not assess the applicability of Section 194C to the payments made by the assessee for film supply, the Tribunal set aside the orders and directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the matter, considering Section 194C and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) in relation to the payments, ensuring a fair hearing for the assessee.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the tax deduction provisions concerning contractual payments made by the assessee for film processing charges. The judgment was pronounced on 31.12.2010 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Hyderabad.