9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1679 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/ 194C or 194J - payment of carriage fees/payment charges by the assessee - HELD THAT - We find that the Tribunal in that case relying upon the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs NGC Network (I) (P) Ltd 2014 (11) TMI 484 - ITAT MUMBAI held that provisions of Sec. 194J are not at all applicable on the impugned payments. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of UTV Entertainment Television Ltd 2014 (12) TMI 716 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein also the Tribunal followed the decision in the case of NGC Network 2014 (11) TMI 484 - ITAT MUMBAI . In the case of UTV Entertainment Television (supra), the Tribunal at para-7 has held that the impugned payments is covered by the explanation (iv)(b) under the provisions of Sec. 194C of the Act. The objections raised by the Ld. DR in respect of impugned payments being payment for royalty vis- -vis payment for technical service is also taken care of by the Tribunal in the case of UTV Entertainment (supra) at para-2 of its order. We are convinced with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, no interference is called for.
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue and Cross objections by assessee against CIT(A) order regarding applicability of Sec. 194C vs. Sec. 194J for charges paid by assessee.
Analysis: 1. Issue of applicability of Sec. 194C vs. Sec. 194J: The primary issue in this case revolves around the correct section applicable to charges paid by the assessee. The Revenue contended that Sec. 194J should apply, while the CIT(A) held that Sec. 194C is applicable. The Assessing Officer levied interest u/s. 201(1A) based on the belief that Sec. 194J applies. The assessee challenged this before the CIT(A), who, after considering relevant provisions and judicial decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that tax was already deducted at source u/s. 194C. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on previous decisions where Sec. 194J was found not to be applicable to similar payments. 2. Judicial decisions and precedents: The Tribunal considered various judicial decisions, including the assessee's own case and other cases like NGC Network and UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. The Tribunal found that payments similar to those made by the assessee were covered under Sec. 194C, not Sec. 194J. The decisions highlighted that Sec. 194J did not apply to the impugned payments, and the Tribunal's findings aligned with the CIT(A)'s decision in the present case. The Tribunal's analysis of these precedents led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and rendered the cross objections by the assessee unnecessary. 3. Conclusion: After thorough consideration of the contentions, judicial decisions, and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and rendering the cross objections by the assessee otiose. The Tribunal's decision was based on the consistent interpretation of Sec. 194C for the payments in question, in line with previous rulings and established legal principles. The case highlights the importance of correctly applying the relevant sections of the Act to determine tax liability and avoid unnecessary disputes.
|
