2015 (8) TMI 1444 - AT - Income Tax

Channel payment fees paid to cable TV operators/DTH providers - addition u/s.40(a)(ia) - whether TDS to be deducted u/s 194C or u/s 194J - Held that - The issue of channel payment fees paid to cable TV operators/DTH providers has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of NGC Networks(I)(P) Ltd. 2014 (11) TMI 484 - ITAT MUMBAI amount not taxable in India in the hands of SSA either u/s.9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) as per the legal position prevalent at the relevant time and the assessee therefore was not liable to deduct tax at source from the said amount paid to M/s. SSA and there was no question of disallowing the said amount by invoking the provisions of sec.40(a)(i) - law can not compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform. It is not the case of the Revenue that the issue of applicability of section 194J was already considered in the case of the Assessee. Therefore when the Assessee has deducted the tax as per provisions of Section 194C which is a bonafide decision of assessee keeping in view the nature of payments and facts of the case then the Assessee was not supposed to foresee the subsequent retrospective amendment in the statute to be held liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions of section 194J - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against directions of Dispute Resolution Panel, disallowance of channel placement fees, applicability of TDS provisions, retrospective amendments, cross objections by assessee, common issues in appeals and cross objections.

ITA 1413/M/2014:
The Assessing Officers (AOs) filed appeals against the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) regarding the disallowance of channel placement fees. The main issue was the justification of deleting the disallowance of fees due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194J. The DRP held that the fees paid did not fall under the definition of royalty, and hence, the provision of section 194J was not applicable. The Tribunal cited precedents and held that the law cannot compel a person to do something impossible to perform. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, stating that the Assessee was not liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) due to the retrospective amendments not being applicable at the time of deduction.

C.O. No.71/M/2014:
The cross objections filed by the assessee supported the DRP's direction and did not raise any new issues. The Tribunal found the cross objections infructuous based on the decision in the appeal filed by the AO.

ITA No.1414/M/2014 & CO No. 72/Mum/2014 (2009-10):
The facts of these cases were similar to the previous appeal, with the main issue being the disallowance of channel placement fees. Following the decision in the previous case, the Tribunal decided the effective ground of appeal against the AO. The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the assessee were infructuous based on the earlier decision.

In conclusion, the appeals of the AO and cross objections by both assesses were dismissed based on the Tribunal's analysis and decisions in the related cases.