2020 (2) TMI 1397 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - expenses towards channel placement fees - HELD THAT - When there is a short fall in deduction of TDS there cannot be any disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Undoubtedly in the case on hand the assessee deducted TDS @2% u/s 194C of the Act on the channel placement fees paid. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 194J would apply and therefore the TDS would have been deducted @10% as against 2%. Therefore as relying on UBJ BROADCASTING PRIVATE LTD. 2019 (9) TMI 541 - ITAT MUMBAI and M/S. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. 2016 (7) TMI 1394 - ITAT MUMBAI this is a case of short deduction of TDS. We uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by revenue against orders of CIT(A) deleting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15. Assessing Officer's view that expenses were royalty, TDS should be 10% under section 194J. CIT(A) deleted disallowance based on precedents. Coordinate Bench decisions cited. Discrepancy in TDS deduction rate (2% vs. 10%) leading to disallowance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15
The appeals were filed by the revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer contended that the expenses incurred by the assessee were in the nature of royalty, requiring TDS deduction at 10% under section 194J, as opposed to the 2% deducted by the assessee under section 194C. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on precedents set by the Mumbai Bench in similar cases, emphasizing that in instances of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in TDS deduction rate and applicability of section 194J
The Assessing Officer disallowed the channel placement fees for the respective assessment years due to the discrepancy in TDS deduction rates applied by the assessee (2%) and the rate deemed applicable by the officer (10% under section 194J). The CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench and held that the case involved short deduction of TDS, not a complete absence. This led to the conclusion that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that in cases of TDS shortfall due to differing interpretations of TDS provisions, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be imposed.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders based on the principle that in instances of short deduction of TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted. The decisions of the Coordinate Bench and the application of precedents supported the stance that discrepancies in TDS deduction rates do not automatically lead to disallowances, especially when there is a reasonable basis for the deduction rates applied by the assessee.