COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), KOLKATA vs. MEDIA WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/193/2018HC CalcuttaWBCHCO001782201817 December 2021Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was correct, following its own prior ruling and a Supreme Court decision on identical issues. The payments were correctly classified under Section 194C.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The core issue was whether payments for services like carriage, uplinking, and broadband fell under Section 194J or Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The key legal issues were whether services like channel carriage, uplinking, and bandwidth charges constitute royalty payments covered by Section 194J, or if they fall under the more general provisions of Section 194C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194J,Section 194C,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

OD-22 ITAT/193/2018 IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/1462/2018) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KOLKATA -Versus- MEDIA WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD. Appearance: Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17th December, 2021. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 12th May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.2057/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata was correct in holding that the services like carriage, uplinking, downlinking, broadband etc. were not

2 covered under specific Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but were under more general Section 194C? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable although the payments are not made by the assessee for any of the category of the work as defined in Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in law in not holding that the case of the assessee fails within the parameters of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as the payments are made by the assessee in respect of services like channel carriage fee, uplinking, bandwidth charges which are defining royalty payments which are covered under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. It is not disputed before us that identical question of law in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I (TDS) vs. Media World Wide (P.) Ltd. reported in [2020] 120 taxmann.com 423 (Kolkata) and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The said decision has become final and binding on the revenue. The identical question

3 was also decided against the revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS 2 vs. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 314 (SC). Thus, following the above decision, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. The connected application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2018, Old No.GA/1462/2018) also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./S.Das

More judgments on Section 194J

All 1,434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →