TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Yogesh Thar For The Respondent : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned are three appeals filed by the same assessee for different assessment years and involve certain common issues, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The solitary common issue in the captioned appeals arises from the action of the income-tax authorities in holding that tax was liable to be deducted at source u/s 194-I of the Act in respect of display charges paid by the assessee as against the stand of the assessee that the tax was liable to be deducted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer, the tax deductible at source was ₹ 1,75,27,705/- as against tax deducted at source by the assessee of ₹ 8,34,652/- thereby resulting in a shortfall of ₹ 1,66,93,052/-. Together with interest chargeable u/s 201(1A) of the Act of ₹ 2,25,35,621/-, the Assessing Officer held the assessee in default for a sum of ₹ 3,92,28,673/- u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 4. When the matter was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), assessee assailed the stand of the Assessing Officer in law and also on facts. The claim of the assessee was that the payments in question were in terms of specific contracts made with the respective parties and assessee was providing specific services to its clients as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee has referred to the following decisions of our co-ordinate Benches to contend that the payments in question would fall within the purview of Sec. 194C of the Act and not under Sec. 194-I of the Act as canvassed by the Revenue :- i) DCIT vs Bright Outdoor Media Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7049 to 7050/Mum/2012 (Mum.); ii) DCIT vs Bright Outdoor Media Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 4008/Mum/2015 (Mum.); iii) ITO vs Roshan Publicity Pvt. Ltd., [2005] 4 SOT 105 (Mum.); iv) DCIT vs Madison Communication Pvt. Ltd., [2015] 152 ITD 759 (Mum.); v) Ogilvy Mather Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, [2015] 155 ITD 475 (Mum.); and, vi) DCIT vs Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7055/Mum/2012 (Mum.) The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referring to the contract with M/s. Bright Outdoor Media Pvt. Ltd., the learned representative pointed out that the said concern is engaged in advertising activities and not for letting of hoardings and, for that matter, referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the said assessee dated 24.06.2016 (supra), wherein similar payments made have been held to be exigible for deduction of tax u/s 194C of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and pointed out that on the basis of material before the Assessing Officer, it stood established that the payment was for taking the hoarding space on rent and thus, Sec. 194-I of the Act was rightly invoked. 7. We have carefully considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g-up a hoarding would be covered under Sec. 194C or Sec. 194-I of the Act. As per the CBDT, a contract for putting-up a hoarding is in the nature of advertising contract and the provisions of Sec. 194C of the Act would be applicable. However, it is further clarified that if a person has taken a particular space on rent and thereafter sub-lets the same, fully or in part, for putting-up a hoarding, such payments would be liable for tax deduction at source u/s 194-I of the Act and not u/s 194C of the Act. In our view, the aforesaid clarification by the CBDT clearly brings out that what is of essence is to examine the nature and terms and conditions of the agreement in pursuance to which the questioned payments have been made by the assessee. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
