9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EY, J.M. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 4th September 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-6, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue pertain to the solitary issue of deletion of disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in respect of carriage fees / channe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices / royalty, the assessee was required to deduct tax @ 10% as per section 194J of the Act. Alleging that the assessee has not deducted tax at source at the appropriate rate, he disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 31,41,07,913 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to deduct tax at source @ 10% as per section 194J of the Act. He submitted, while deciding the aforesaid issue, the Tribunal in ITA no.2697, 2698, 4206, 4207/Mum./ 2012, dated 16th December 2015, has accepted the claim of the assessee that the payment made towards carriage fees / channel placement fees is neither in the nature of royalty nor fees for technical services. Hence, it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 194J of the Act has come up for consideration in assessee's own case before the Tribunal in the orders referred to above. The Tribunal while deciding the issue in unequivocal terms has held that the payment made towards carriage fees / channel placement fees does not partake the character of either royalty or fees for technical services. Thus, the issue having been decided in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
