Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1381 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194J - Carriage Fees/Channel Placement Fees - Whether payments made for use/right to use of 'process’ are 'royalty' as per Explanation 6 to section 9(l)(vi) hence such payments are covered u/s. 194J ? -HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai ‘A’ Bench in assessee’s own case has considered the issue in the light of the provisions of Section 194J and by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., [2018 (5) TMI 1148 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that channel placement fees is not a royalty in terms of Explanation-2 to Section 9(i)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, no disallowance could be made u/s.40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source u/s.194J There is no error in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in deleting additions made by the AO towards carriage fees / channel placement fees u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are inclined to upheld the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Addition u/s 14A - disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not earned any exempt income for the year under consideration. AO has brought out this fact in his assessment order. Once, there is no exempt income for the year under consideration whether expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income contemplated u/s.14A could be disallowed or not is no longer res integra. See BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CHEMINVEST LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . Decided in favour of assessee.
|