ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. T.V. VISION LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3387/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 February 2018AY 2012-137 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It was held that carriage fees are not royalty and that a shortfall in TDS deduction does not warrant disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) when tax has been deducted under a different provision.

What were the facts?

The assessee company debited distribution expenses, including carriage fees. The AO disallowed a portion of these expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for alleged short TDS deduction under Section 194J instead of Section 194C.

What were the issues?

Whether carriage fees constitute royalty requiring TDS under Section 194J, and if short TDS deduction under Section 194C instead of 194J leads to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C,Section 194J,Section 9(1)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra (CIT DR), Shri Madhur Aggarwal (AR)
Hearing: 04/01/2018Pronounced: 28/02/2018

आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →