9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication 238 CTR (Del) 233, without considering the amendment in section 9(1)(vi) w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 [by Finance Act, 2012], wherein the intent of legislature in respect of 'royalty' has been clarified thereby deeming the said charges to be 'royalty' in nature? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,44,17,143/after considering the expost facto agreement between the assessee and the Nimbus and not considering the main agreement dtd. 18.03.2006 between the assessee and the Nimbus? 2. In question (a) the revenue contends that the Satellite Space Fees and transpond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Income tax Vs. New Skies Satellite BV, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 114. The Court followed the earlier decision in case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication (supra) and dismissed the revenue's Appeal. It was held that the explanations added below section 9(1) of the Act were not merely clarificatory in nature. Respectfully agreeing with the said decisions of the Delhi High Court, this question is not considered. 5. Question (b) arises in following factual background. The assessee had an agreement with one M/s. Nimbus Communication Limited for exhibiting cricket matches on television organized by The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The assessee would pay a total of Rs. 124.98 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the assessee and BCCB for live telecast of matches during the year 2006 to 2009. The AO has not made any addition for nondirection of TDS under section 40(a) of the Act, but, held that the expenses in question are not allowable because the same have been made in the absence of any expressed agreement between the parties. In our considered view, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue." 7. It is undisputed that the assessee and Nimbus are persons referred to in clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 40A of the Act. However, in order to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
