2014 (3) TMI 720 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Act Whether the expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for purpose of business so as to allow the expenditure as a deduction - Held that - The expenditure incurred by Manorama Films towards purchase of telugu picture remake rights of the Hindi Film Lage Raho Munnabhai , which was paid to M/s Vinod Chopra Films Pvt. Ltd. - The AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) as expenditure is otherwise allowable as deduction while computing the income of the assessee - the AO did not carry out detailed enquiry regarding allowability of expenditure before invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules and section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act regarding deduction of cost of remake rights.
2. Timing of agreement for transfer of remake rights in relation to amendments in tax deduction provisions.
3. Classification of payment towards remake rights as 'royalty' and applicability of tax deduction at source.
4. Liability for tax deduction once payee has accounted for receipt and paid tax.
5. Treatment of share capital contribution in relation to TDS provisions.
6. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the disallowance of cost of remake rights under section 40(a)(ia) citing Rule 9A and argued that disallowance under section 40(a) is limited to specific expenditures. The tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for detailed enquiry on the allowability of expenditure.
2. The timing of the agreement for transfer of remake rights was scrutinized in light of amendments to tax deduction provisions. The tribunal emphasized the importance of the date of credit or payment for tax deduction at source and directed a de-novo assessment by the Assessing Officer.
3. The classification of payment as 'royalty' and applicability of tax deduction under section 194J was debated. The tribunal highlighted the need for a transfer of rights to trigger tax deduction obligations, remanding the issue for further assessment.
4. The liability for tax deduction post-receipt and payment of tax by the payee was raised, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The tribunal directed a reevaluation by the Assessing Officer in line with legal provisions.
5. The treatment of share capital contribution vis-a-vis TDS provisions was discussed, emphasizing the nature of the payment and its relevance to tax deduction requirements.
6. The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, pending further assessment by the Assessing Officer on the deductibility of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on revenue expenditure.