TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure has been disallowed by the Revenue, meaning of royalty as defined therein, is that as provided in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and not Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act can only be if the payment is 'Royalty' in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act. Undisputedly, the payment made for channel placement as a fee, is not royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, no disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(vi) of the Act, can be made in the present facts - Decided in favour of assessee Whether Channel Placement Fee is not in the nature of royalty u/s. 9(1)(vi) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax is not required to be deducted u/s. 194J of the I.T. Act despite Explanation 6 thereto inserted w.e.f.01/06/1976? 3 Re Question (a): (a) During the subject Assessment Year, the Respondent-Assessee had paid channel placement fee of Rs,7.18 Crores to the cable operators. On the aforesaid payment of tax, it had deducted tax at source under Section 194 C of the Act at the rate of 2%. During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the tax deducted at source on payment of ₹ 7.18 Crores to the cable operator, had to be at the rate of 10% and not at the rate of 2%. This on the ground that, the provision applicable was Section 194J of the Act and not 194C of the Act, as the payment made, was in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective effect from 1976. Thus, dismissed the Revenue's Appeal. (d) We find that view taken by the impugned order dated 9th July, 2014 of the Tribunal that a party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. This is in accord with the view taken by this Court in CIT v/s. Cello Plast (2012) 209 Taxmann 617 wherein this Court has applied the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform). (e) In the present facts, the amendment by introduction of Explanation6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act took place in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
