TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioned programmes", will fall outside the realm of section 194C, Explanation III of the Act. - Decided against revenue Uplinking charges were liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C or 194J - Held that:- In the light of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasar Bharati [2006 (11) TMI 159 - DELHI High Court], the specific provisions of section 194J are applicable in case of uplinking fees being integral part of the broadcasting and telecasting. Following the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasar Bharati, and other decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A) observing that uplinking was an integral part of broadcasting/telecasting and is covered under the Explanation to section 194C - Decided against revenue Payment for production of programmes for bradcasting and telecasting was liable to tax u/s 194C or 194J - Held that:- The CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision in the case of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) (Supra) and CBDT circular dated 30.08.1995 (supra) By holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same cannot be done merely by mechanical means. Therefore, the payment on account of placement charges is in nature of technical fee within the meaning of section 194J and section 194C has no application to the facts of the case Accordingly, CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding to the contrary. III. Without prejudice to the first two grounds of appeals as above, since providing the services of preferred channel placement on account of which placement charges are paid requires use of industrial, commercial of scientific equipment within the meaning of sub clause (iva) to Explanation to sub clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the income tax Act, 1961, the said payment is payment on account of royalty and therefore, section 194J is clearly applicable. Accordingly, CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating this factual and legal positing and in giving relief to the assessee. IV. The CIT (A) has further erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the in any case nature of services rendered by the cable operator / multi service operators consists in facilitating delivery of products of broadcaster to the viewer and in view of implied agency, such payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee deducted tax at source at the rate of 2% u/s 194C from such payments. 4. The AO held that the said payment were in the nature of technical services and , therefore, the assessee was to deduct tax at source at the rate of 10% u/s 194J and not u/s 194C and consequently treated the assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A). Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter to CIT (A). 5. The CIT(A) by disagreeing with the view taken by the AO decided the issue of deduction of tax at source on placement charges in favour of the asssessee by following the Judgment of Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) [2006] 158 taxmann 470 by holding that the placement charges/ carriage fees is covered under the definition of work contract u/s 194C. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of AO and submitted that the services provided by the cable operators are highly technical, involves technical equipment for transmitting the channel network to end user and, therefore, the payment is in the nature of fees for technical services and thus attracted deduction of tax at source u/s 194J. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter we hold that these appeals do not involve any substantial question of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasar Bharati (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the grounds no. 1 to 5 are dismissed. 11. Ground no. 6 relates to the issue whether the uplinking charges were liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C or 194J. 12. The facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of telecasting/broadcasting TV channels and for which the signals/channels need to be uplinked from the earth station to the satellite. The assessee entered into an agreement with TV- 18 India Ltd for uplinking its channels/signals from TV18's uplink centre and thus made payment of uplinking charges to the said company and deducted TDS u/s 194C. 13. The AO held that the uplinking involved operation of complex equipments at the uplink centre and further that the assessee was paying uplinking charges not for broadcasting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case the payment has been made to Indian resident. In the light of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasar Bharati (supra), the specific provisions of section 194J are applicable in case of uplinking fees being integral part of the broadcasting and telecasting. Following the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasar Bharati, and other decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A) on this issue and the same is hereby affirmed. Thus the ground no 6 is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 18. Ground No. 7 relates to whether the payment for production of programmes for bradcasting and telecasting was liable to tax u/s 194C or 194J. 19. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee used to get his programmes such as TV serials, films and other programmes produced from outside producers/studios for which it used to make payments. The similar production was also undertaken by the assessee in-house. The assessee deducted TDS u/s 194C from the payments made to such producers of programmes. 20. The AO rejected the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
