DCIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5623/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 January 2026AY 2016-1715 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that all the defaults pointed out by the AO, which were challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A), had been decided in favour of the assessee and were squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had followed the precedent and granted relief to the assessee. De hors any contrary submissions from the Revenue regarding the facts or decisions to dislodge the CIT(A)'s findings, the Tribunal concurred with the impugned appellate order. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal arose from an assessment order passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the OSD, TDS Circle 2(3), Mumbai, dated 21.03.2023. The assessee, Tata Play Limited, is engaged in providing DTH services. The Assessing Officer (AO) identified several instances of alleged TDS defaults, including non-deduction of TDS on discounts for starter kits and recharge coupons, payments to installation service providers, document management charges, and year-end provisions. The AO directed the assessee to pay a total default amount of Rs. 88,59,63,679/-. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the demands raised by the AO.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following issues: 1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 194H concerning discounts on Tata Sky Starter Kits and Recharge Coupons, considering the principal-agent relationship between the assessee and its distributors. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO regarding payments to Installation Service Providers (ISPs), holding that such payments fall under Section 194C and not Section 194J, given the specialized technical nature of installation services. 3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not confirming the AO's order treating the assessee as an 'assessee-in-default' under Section 201(1) for short deduction of TDS on document management fees, where the AO believed it fell under Section 194J and not Section 194C. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) on short deductions related to discounts on starter kits, installation service providers, and document management fees, as these were subject to further appeal. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) on year-end provisions of expenses amounting to Rs. 53,04,600/-, when the concerned parties were identifiable and the obligation to deduct TDS arose. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) on year-end provisions of expenses, given the assessee's suo motu disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), admitting the applicability of TDS. 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand and consequential interest pertaining to TDS default on rent payments amounting to Rs. 2,03,904/- without cogent reasoning. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the issues were squarely covered by decisions of Hon'ble Courts and the ITAT in its own case, and therefore, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the demands. The assessee also submitted that TDS was deducted and deposited in subsequent months for year-end provisions, and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in its own case had deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for year-end provisions. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue vehemently supported the order of the AO and requested time for written submissions, which were not furnished.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194H,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C,Section 194J,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistri
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.12.2025Pronounced: 02.01.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The aforesaid appeal is filed by the Revenue, against the order of ADDL/

JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, [for short “Id.

CIT(A)”] dated 15.07.2025 for the AY 2017-18, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (the Act) dated 21.03.2023, passed by O , TDS Circle 2(3), Mumbai. Tata Play Limited

2.

The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in the present appeal are extracted, as under:

“1. "Whether, the Addl/JCIT(A) was justified

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194H

All 1,314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194H →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →