2014 (4) TMI 113 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction of TDS u/s 194J or u/s 194C - Nature of agreement - AO was of the view that the dubbing expenses/print processing fees and production expenses were in the nature of fees for technical services and royalty respectively, and hence the tax should have been deducted under section 194J of the Act @10%,instead of @2% deducted by the assessee under section 194C - Held that - The assignment or vesting of copy rights etc. in the programme are incidental to the main object of the agreement or transactions in question. When a contactor produces a programme on behalf of other, it is obvious that all the rights including copy rights etc. will vest in the producer and the assigned producer/contractor will not be left with any control or right over the programme and such rights of the producer have been recognized with the said assignment clause, which is incidental to the main object of the contract. The observation of the AO that assigned producer has an absolute contract over the rights of the programme is falsified from the perusal of the different clauses of the agreement. - agreement in question was an agreement to produce the programme by the assigned producer i.e., contractor on behalf of the producer i.e., assessee. Clause (b) to Explanation III to section 194C specifically covers activity of production of programmes whereas provisions of section 194J are general in nature - Provisions of section 194C would prevail over section 194J of Act - Section 194C clearly states that payment for production of programmes constitutes payments for work under section 194C - Assessee rightly deducted TDS u/s 194C at rate of 2% on payments made to contractor - CIT(A) has rightly observed that production of programmes is nothing but combination of processes right from planning - He rightly held that dubbing charges and processing fees being a part of production of television serials and programmes, are squarely covered under ambit of specific provisions of section 194C of Act and liable to TDS at rate of 2%. - General provisions of section 194J are not attracted in this case - Findings of ld. CIT (A) upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Production Expenses" for TDS purposes under Sections 194C and 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of "Dubbing Expenses/Print Processing Fees" for TDS purposes under Sections 194C and 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "Production Expenses" for TDS purposes under Sections 194C and 194J:

The primary issue is whether the payments made by the assessee for production expenses should be classified under Section 194C or Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that these expenses were in the nature of 'fees for technical services' and 'royalty', thus requiring TDS deduction under Section 194J at 10%. The AO relied on the production agreement's clause that vested copyrights with the producer, interpreting it as a royalty agreement.

However, the CIT(A) observed that the agreements were essentially for producing TV programs on a commissioned work basis, where the assessee retained ownership of the programs. Citing Section 194C, which includes broadcasting and telecasting, the CIT(A) concluded that the payments were for contractual work, not technical services or royalty, thus falling under Section 194C at a 2% TDS rate. This view was supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in 'CIT vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corpn. Of India' [292 ITR 580], which held that such payments are covered under Section 194C.

Upon review, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the agreement's primary intent was production, not the transfer of copyrights. The tribunal noted that the clauses must be read in harmony, revealing the contract was for producing programs, with copyrights vesting in the producer as incidental. Thus, the tribunal confirmed that the payments fell under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

2. Classification of "Dubbing Expenses/Print Processing Fees" for TDS purposes under Sections 194C and 194J:

The AO argued that payments for dubbing expenses and print processing fees were for technical/professional services, thus requiring TDS under Section 194J. The AO noted that these activities involved technical expertise.

However, the CIT(A) found that dubbing and print processing were integral parts of the production process, falling under Section 194C. The CIT(A) observed that these services were part of the overall production activity, which includes various processes from planning to post-production, making the program ready for telecast.

The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that Section 194C's scope includes all activities related to broadcasting and telecasting, including dubbing and processing. These activities are considered 'work' under Section 194C, attracting a 2% TDS rate. The tribunal reiterated that specific provisions (Section 194C) prevail over general provisions (Section 194J) when both are applicable.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming that both production expenses and dubbing/print processing fees fall under Section 194C, requiring a 2% TDS deduction. The tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreements and relevant legal provisions, aligning with established judicial interpretations.