2012 (7) TMI 186 - AT - Income Tax

Justification to allow deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) being 25% of the royalty paid - AO stated that as the assessee fails to comply its liability to TDS u/s. 194J the entire amount paid as royalty warrants disallowance - Held that - As the payment in question was made by the assessee for obtaining certain rights over the film Boa and Passion including rights of distribution and exhibition of cinematographic films and also satellite TV protecting rights. In view of the specific provisions of Explanation 2, clause (v) of section 9(1)(vi) consideration for distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films are excluded from the purview of definition of royalty. The CIT(A) bifurcated the value of the rights acquired by the assessee and has attributed 25% of the payments made as attributable to TV rights which would be royalty taxable in the hands of the non-resident in India - in favour of assessee. Additions on Payment made on Studio Hire Charges - CIT(A)deleted additions made by AO - Held that - As the assessee had utilized the services of dubbing studio by using their equipments as well as the artists who were working for Studio, the assessee had thus carried out the work of dubbing by engaging services and the same was of the nature of getting work done through a sub-contractor - that the provisions of section 194C were applicable and the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source at 2% treating the payment as a payment to subcontractor for carrying out a work - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act regarding deduction of tax at source on royalty payment.
2. Determination of taxability of royalty payment made to a non-resident for distribution and exhibition of cinematographic films.
3. Application of section 194C for deduction of tax at source on studio hire charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal by the revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to allow deduction under section 40(a)(ia) for 25% of the royalty paid, contending that failure to comply with TDS provisions warrants disallowance. The assessee, an individual engaged in dubbing work and movie dealings, made a payment to a non-resident for film rights. The Assessing Officer treated the payment as royalty, disallowing the deduction due to non-deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) examined the agreement and found that the payment was for distribution and exhibition rights, not falling under the definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The CIT(A) attributed 25% of the payment to TV rights, holding it taxable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the payment was for film rights, excluding it from royalty definition, and upheld the 25% attribution for TV rights.

Issue 2:
The revenue contested the deletion of an addition on studio hire charges under section 194-I by the CIT(A). The assessee, having own dubbing studio, subcontracted work to another studio. The Assessing Officer considered the payment as rent, requiring TDS at 20%, disallowing the deduction under section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) analyzed the nature of work done by the subcontractor and held that it fell under section 194C, where tax was deducted at 2%. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the work was subcontracted, meeting the conditions of section 194C, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The first issue involved the interpretation of royalty payment and TDS requirements, while the second issue concerned the taxability of studio hire charges under different sections of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and application of relevant provisions resulted in the dismissal of the revenue's appeal in both instances.