JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs VIACOM 18 MEDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F”

Before: HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. N. K. PRADHAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev K, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby, Shri Madhur Agarwal

M/s Viacom 18 Media JCIT (TDS) (OSD)- 2(3), 718, 7th floor, Smt K. G. Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Zion Biz World, Subhash Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Road, ‘A’ Vile Parle (w), Building, Charni Road (West), Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 057 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACM9164E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.04.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

The present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 60, Mumbai dated 31.01.18 for AY 2008-09. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 2. The solitary ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in holding that placement charges paid by the assessee to the services rendered by the cable operators /DTH operators, which comes within the purview of section 194C of the Act, whereas according to the revenue, such placement in the nature of technical fee within the meaning of section 194J of the Act, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order.

At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that this ground is covered by the order of Hon’ble ITAT in 4208 & 4209/Mum/12 and ITA No. 2201 7 5421/Mum/14 in assessee’s own case, which were also upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1410 of 2016 and 1409 of 2016. Ld. AR also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. UTV entertainment Television Ltd, wherein the identical ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided on merits.

M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the appeal and relied upon the assessment order passed by AO.

We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in 4208 & 4209/Mum/12 and ITA No. 2201 7 5421/Mum/14 in assessee’s own case, which were also upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1410 of 2016 and 1409 of 2016. We have also drawn attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. UTV entertainment Television Ltd (ITA No. 525, 732, 741 & 1035 of 2015), wherein the identical ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided on merits. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. UTV entertainment Television Ltd CIT Vrs. UTV entertainment Television Ltd is contained in para no. 17, which is reproduced below:-

M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 17. We have already discussed in detail the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards placement fees/carriage fees. We have agreed with the findings of fact based on material on record that when the payment is made towards standard fee or placement fee. The activity involved is the same in both cases. As stated earlier, when services are rendered as per the contract by accepting placement fee or carriage fee, the same are similar to the services rendered against the payment of standard fee paid for broadcasting of channels on any frequency. In the present case the placement fee are paid under the contract between the respondent and the cable operators /MSOs. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, considering the nature of transaction, the argument of the appellant that carriage fees or placement fees are in the nature of commission or royalty can be accepted.

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.

M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 7. In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2019. (N. K. Pradhan) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Acountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 23.04.2019 Sr.PS. Dhananjay

JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. VIACOM 18 MEDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI