2018 (3) TMI 1771 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C or 194J - nature of services rendered by the cable operators/MSOs for which placement charges are paid - HELD THAT - As decided in M/S. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD. 2017 (11) TMI 915 - BOMBAY HIGH the placement fees are paid under the contract between the respondent and the cable operators/ MSOs. Therefore by no stretch of imagination considering the nature of transaction the argument of the appellant that carriage fees or placement fees are in the nature of commission or royalty can be accepted. TDS u/s 194C or 194J - dubbing charges - whether are in the nature of contract and not a fee for technical services? - HELD THAT - Issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the RespondentAssesse by the decision of this Court in SAHARA ONE MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LTD. 2016 (10) TMI 703 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein held that the definition of work as provided in the Explanation to Section 194C of the Act is itself inclusive. It include all work necessary for preparation / production of any programme so as to put it in a state fit for broadcasting and / or telecasting. In view of the self evident position in law by virtue of the definition of work as provided in Section 194C of the Act the view taken by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal is unexceptionable. - Revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sections 194C and 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding placement charges paid to cable operators/MSOs.
2. Determination of whether dubbing charges should be treated as contract charges under Section 194C or fees for technical services under Section 194J.

Analysis:
1. The appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The main issue raised by the Revenue was whether the nature of services rendered by cable operators/MSOs, for which placement charges are paid, falls under Section 194C or Section 194J of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous case involving UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. The Revenue's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that it did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, Question No. (i) was not entertained, and the appeal was dismissed.

2. Moving on to Question No. 2, the parties agreed that the issue raised had already been decided against the Revenue in a previous case involving M/s. Sahara One Media and Entertainment Ltd. The High Court, referring to the decision in the Sahara One case, concluded that the question did not give rise to any substantial question of law. As a result, Question No. 2 was not entertained, and both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the classification of charges paid to cable operators/MSOs and dubbing charges under Sections 194C and 194J of the Income Tax Act, respectively. The judgments in previous cases were crucial in determining that the issues raised did not present any substantial questions of law, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.