9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract or fees towards royalty - Held that:- We note that Section 194C of the Act specifically defines the scope of “work” included therein by defining the meaning of “work” to include broadcasting and telecasting. The work of unlinking charges is an integral part of telecasting the programmes. Thus, the deduction of tax on the above payment would thus clearly fall within Section 194C of the Act. The revenue has not been able to show as to why Section 194C of the Act would not apply in these facts. No substantial question of law. TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - payment for production of programmes - Held that:- Tribunal upheld the view of the respondent and the CIT (A) that the payment for production of programmes for broadcasting and telecasting w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the ITAT is correct in holding that the placement fees/carriage fees paid to cable operators/MSO/DTH Operators are payments for work contract covered u/s 194C and not fees for technical services u/s 194J, without appreciating that the services received by assessee are technical in nature? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in holding that the uplinking charges paid to TV18 India Ltd for uplinking its channels /signals from TV18' s uplinking centre are payments for work contract covered u/s 194C and not fees towards royalty u/s 194J, without appreciating that the services received by assessee are technical in nature? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax, TDS-2, Mumbai Vs. M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal Nos.1117 of 2015, 1107 of 2015, 1174 of 2015 and 126 of 2016) decided on 28th February, 2018 . (ii) In view of the above decision of this Court and for the reasons indicated therein, question No.(a) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Re: Question No.b (i) The respondent paid unlinking charges to a third party. The impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) of the applicant's contention that these charges were liable for deduction under tax at source under 194C of the Act and not under Section 194J as contended by the revenue. This because the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the defination of work as defined in Section 194C of the Act. (iv) In view of the binding CBDT circular dated 29th February, 2016 the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Re: Question No. d (i) Admittedly, this question as urged, is consequential to the earlier questions. Therefore, would only arise if there is short deduction of tax and have made the deduction under Section 194C of the Act instead of Section 194J of the Act. (ii) However, in view of the fact that there is no short deduction of tax this question in the present facts would not arise. In the above view, there is no question of entertaining this question. 8. Accordingly, both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
