Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 34 - AT - Income TaxLevy of TDS on provision for payment to artistes - Held that:- Since the payees are not identifiable in this case at the time of making of the provision, therefore no statutory obligation was thus cast upon the assessee to deduct tax at source on the above amount. However, we find that the facts as averred by the Ld. A.R that the entire provision has been written back in the next year and the actual amounts paid/credited were subjected to TDS in the subsequent years as per the detailed statements filed before the authorities, are not borne from the records, but are merely supported by the hollow and unsubstantiated claim of the assessee, therefore we herein set aside the matter to the file of the ITO(TDS) for making necessary verifications as regards the said claim of the assessee, and if the same is found to be in order, then as observed by us hereinabove, no obligation would be fastened upon the assessee for deduction of any tax at source as regards the aforesaid amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- during the year under consideration, viz A.Y. 2008-09, and as such the order of the lower authorities treating the assessee as being in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) shall stand vacated. The matter is thus restored to the file of the ITO(TDS), who however is directed to restrict himself to making of the verifications as directed by us hereinabove. TDS u/s 194C or 194J - production of programmes for broadcasting or telecasting - short of deduction - Held that:- We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the fact that though the legislature had vide the Finance Act, 1995, therein specifically earmarked a separate statutory provision in the form of Sec. 194J to regulate the obligation of an assessee to deduct tax at source in respect of fess for professional and technical services, however interestingly we find that the legislature in all its wisdom had simultaneously broadened the scope and gamut of Sec. 194C and had brought ‘production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting’ within the sweep of Sec. 194C. The aforesaid specific earmarking of the ‘production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting’ in the body of Sec. 194C, in light of the aforesaid legal juxtaposition can thus safely be concluded to have been carried out with a purposive intent of making the same as an exclusive subject matter of Sec. 194C. We are of the considered view that the very insertion of the ‘Explanation III’ to Sec. 194C by the Finance Act, 1995, alongwith a simultaneous insertion of Sec. 194J, can safely be held to be a conscious, purposive and intentional act on the part of the legislature, in order to avoid any doubt or debate as regards the statutory provision which would regulate the deduction of tax at source as regards the services contemplated therein. We are of the considered view that in light of the fact that the legislature had clearly brought ‘production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting’ within the sweep of Sec. 194C, therefore the deduction of tax at source as regards the services rendered therein would inescapably be a subject matter of Sec. 194C, and the same would not fall within the sweep and domain of the provisions of the newly inserted Sec. 194J.
|