Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee to Zee Turner Ltd. Held that:- In the present case, the respondent made payments which were reimbursement by the assessee to Zee Turner Ltd. Thus holding that there was no occasion to deduct tax on the reimbursement of the expenses paid by the respondent assessee to Zee Turner Ltd. This concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal has not been shown to be perverse. It is settled position in law that reimbursement of expenses is not taxable as held by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2008 (11) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Krupp Udhe Gmbh [2010 (3) TMI 287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d processing charges made to production houses, are payments for work contract covered u/s 194C and not fees for technical services under section 194J? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee has correctly deducted tax under section 194C on the payments made to event managers, for events other than sport related activities, as per CBDT's notification no.188 of 2008 dated 21.08.2008, without appreciating that this notification has merely brought sport related event managers under section 194J whereas the other professional event managers are always covered under section 194J for TDS purpose? - Income Tax Appeal No. 1117, 1107,1174 of 2015 And 126 of 2016 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee has correctly deducted tax under section 194C on the payments made to event managers, for events other than sport related activities, as per CBDT's notification no.188 of 2008 dated 21.08.2008, without appreciating that this notification has merely brought sport related event managers under section 194J whereas the other professional event managers are always covered under section 194J for TDS purpose? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the purported reimbursement of expenses was not part of the commission paid by the assessee to Zee Turner Ltd. and, therefore, the assessee was not re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in UTVI Entertainment Television Ltd. (supra) had preferred an appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal No.525 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd.) and by its order dated 10th October, 2017, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. (b) In the above view, the question (i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding question no.(iv) : (a) We find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Tribunal in the impugned order have on examination of the details provided by the respondent assessee found that whether the payee i.e. Zee Turner Ltd. paid commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The concurrent finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse by the Revenue in any manner. (c) Accordingly, the question (v) as proposed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Regarding question no.(vi) : (a) The Assessing Officer had held that there was a short deduction of tax at source resulting in the respondent assessee becoming liable under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. (b) However, in appeal, the CIT(A) noted the details as provided by way of challans of payment of tax deduced at source and found that the Assessing Officer had not considered all the details completely. On examination of all the details, the CIT(A) found that there has been no default in deducting ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates