INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 194C read with 194J

Tax deduction at source - 194C or 194J - Carriage Fees/Channel Placement fees - Payments made for use/right to use of 'process' are 'royalty' as per Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) -

Whether CIT(A) had erred in directing to delete disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194J in respect of 'Carriage Fees/Channel Placement fees' and failing to appreciate that the payments made for use/right to use of 'process' are 'royalty' as per Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) hence such payments were covered under section 194J. Held: High Court in the case of CIT v. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. [(2017) 399 ITR 443 (Bom) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4885 (Bom-HC)] had observed, that in case of an assessee carrying on the business of broadcasting television channels, the payments made towards placement charges would fall within the meaning of “work” covered in Clause (iv) of Explanation to section194C. On the basis of aforesaid observations, CIT(A) had rightly vacated the disallowance that was made by AO under section 40(a)(ia)

Followed:CIT v. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 443 (Bom) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4885 (Bom-HC) CIT v. Kishore Rao & Ors. (HUF) (2016) 387 ITR 0196 (Karn) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1952 (Karn-HC) CIT v. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 0284 (Ker): 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3001 (Ker-HC) CIT v. Prayas Engineering Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1237 of 2014, dt. 17-11-2014] CIT v. Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) (2007) 292 ITR 580 (Del) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1619 (Del-HC) ACIT v. TV Vision Ltd. [ITA No. 5862/Mum/2017, dt. 23-10-2019] ACIT v. T.V. Vision Ltd. [ITA No. 3386/MUM/2016, ITA No. 3387/MUM/2016, dt. 28-2-2018]

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT