DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy

49 SOT 448Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#4870 most cited

What is DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy authority for?

Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable where tax has been deducted at source, even if at a lower rate than required, due to a difference in opinion regarding the nature of the payment.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy · 49 SOT 448 · Section 40(a)(ia) · Section 194C · Section 194J · TDS · short deduction · disallowance · nature of payment

Judgments citing DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy

M.V.A.Seetharama Raju, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 795/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.795/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mr. M.V.A. Seetharama Raju, Tax, Flat No.32, Rishikesh Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. Pan: Agopr 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. I.P.Roopa, JCIT
Section 139Section 192Section 201Section 40

…voluntarily. The appellant further contends that short deduction is not subject to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and relies on the following cases in support of their contention. 1. CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal (15 taxmann.com 289). 2. CIT Vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (49 SOT 448). 4.1 To resolve the issue on hand, it is pertinent here to refer to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P V 9 S Memorial Hospital Ltd (380 ITR 284) wherein it was declared as follows: Section 40(a)(ia) is attracted in cases where fee for professional services or technical services is ‘payable’ an which tax is ‘deductib…

ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR &
Section 201Section 92

…with the non-deduction of TDS altogether but not short deduction. Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. SK Tekriwal (2011) 15 taxman.com 289 (Kolkata-Trib) and also CIT vs. Chandabhoy and Jassobhoy (2012) 49 SOT 448. 10. This issue is no longer res Integra and squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 183 of 2012 in the case of CIT vs. M/s SK Tekriwal and also the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PV Rajagopal vs. UOI (1998) 99 taxman 475 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that section 201 h…

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 1502/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR &
Section 201Section 92

…with the non-deduction of TDS altogether but not short deduction. Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. SK Tekriwal (2011) 15 taxman.com 289 (Kolkata-Trib) and also CIT vs. Chandabhoy and Jassobhoy (2012) 49 SOT 448. 10. This issue is no longer res Integra and squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 183 of 2012 in the case of CIT vs. M/s SK Tekriwal and also the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PV Rajagopal vs. UOI (1998) 99 taxman 475 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that section 201 h…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Utv Entertainment Television Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6784/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(1) V. M/S. Utv Entertainment Television Ltd., 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan Solitaire Corporate Park M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaccv4782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Department By : M. Samatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: M. Samatha
Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vi)

…e towards editing charges was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9. On appeal Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekriwal and the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Chandanbhoy & Jassobhoy [49 SOT 448 (Mum. Trib.) deleted the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as it was held that no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of short 10 M/s. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., deduction and provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act applies only for non-deduction of TDS. 10. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the…

Kinetic Advertising India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-7(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3194/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 197Section 40

…. ACIT (2017) 60 ITR (T) 162 (Mum-Trib) iii) Three Star Granites (P) Ltd. Vrs. ACIT (204) 32 ITR (T) 398 (Cochin-Trib) 5 I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2019 Kinetic Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. iv) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -11(2) vrs Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (2012) 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) v) Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vrs. DCIT 1(1) (2013) 155 TTJ 470 (Cochin Trib) vi) ACIT vrs. Pentagon Systems & Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6879/Mum/2013) 9. Further it submitted that assessee deducted tax at source as per the certificate issued u/s 197 up to the approved limit of Rs. 7,51,10,831/- and paid to the credit of the government. After…

Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 171/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…ecision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s. Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt. Ltd., by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal (supra) in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’bl…

Sapiens Technologies(1982) India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 170/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…ecision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s. Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt. Ltd., by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal (supra) in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’bl…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Dml Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jivanlal Lalloobhai& Co. 206 ITR 548 (Bom) · Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai “B” Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 129 ITD 109 (Mumbai) · Hon’ble ITAT Mumabi in the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) 9. Respectfully following the above judgement, I am also of the view that in a case like this, where the appellant has deducted tax at source in respect of the payments made to CHAs @ 2% under section 194C, when it is required to be made @10% u/s. 194J of the IT Act, 1961, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S D.M.L. Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jivanlal Lalloobhai& Co. 206 ITR 548 (Bom) · Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai “B” Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 129 ITD 109 (Mumbai) · Hon’ble ITAT Mumabi in the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) 9. Respectfully following the above judgement, I am also of the view that in a case like this, where the appellant has deducted tax at source in respect of the payments made to CHAs @ 2% under section 194C, when it is required to be made @10% u/s. 194J of the IT Act, 1961, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be…

M/S. D.M.L. Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jivanlal Lalloobhai& Co. 206 ITR 548 (Bom) · Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai “B” Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 129 ITD 109 (Mumbai) · Hon’ble ITAT Mumabi in the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) 9. Respectfully following the above judgement, I am also of the view that in a case like this, where the appellant has deducted tax at source in respect of the payments made to CHAs @ 2% under section 194C, when it is required to be made @10% u/s. 194J of the IT Act, 1961, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Tv 18 Home Shopping Network Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4726/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…ecision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal (supra) in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Prayas Engineering Ltd., (supra) and the Kar…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Tv18 Home Shopping Network Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4725/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…ecision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal (supra) in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Prayas Engineering Ltd., (supra) and the Kar…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Tv. Vision Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6166/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6166/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit-16(1) M/S. T.V. Vision Ltd. बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Adhiraj Chambers Room No.439 Aaykar Bhavan Oberoi Complex, New Link Road, Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7276-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nikunj Gada – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…such payment to cable operators should be subject to TDS @2% u/s 194C. Further appellant gets support from the jurisdictional ITAT, decision in the case of a CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). Respectfully following the decision over the issue, the AO is directed to of genuine expenditure of Rs.30,42,13,444/-.” 7. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance in question holding that carriage fees does not come within the ambit of the definition of Royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct t…

S. Kumars Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4501/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 40

…section 194I of the Act. It is further submitted by him that no disallowance can be made for short deduction of tax in view of the decision in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal 361 ITR 432 (Cal), Dish TV India Pvt. v. ACIT 190TTJ 537 (Mum), DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mum), ACIT v. Hindustan Thompson 1206/M/2018, DCIT v. Beekaylon Syn. P. Ltd. (ITA No. 6506/M/2008). On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In S.K. Tekriwal (supra), the assessee deducted tax u/s 1…

S. Kumars Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4500/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 40

…section 194I of the Act. It is further submitted by him that no disallowance can be made for short deduction of tax in view of the decision in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal 361 ITR 432 (Cal), Dish TV India Pvt. v. ACIT 190TTJ 537 (Mum), DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mum), ACIT v. Hindustan Thompson 1206/M/2018, DCIT v. Beekaylon Syn. P. Ltd. (ITA No. 6506/M/2008). On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In S.K. Tekriwal (supra), the assessee deducted tax u/s 1…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. T.V. Vision Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5862/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodassistant Commissinoer Of M/S Tv Vision Ltd. Income Tax-16(1), 4Th Floor, Adhirai Chambers, R. No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Oberoi Complex, Vs. M.K. Marg, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Indra G. Anand, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…such payment to cable operators should be subject to TDS @2% u/s 194C. Further appellant gets support from the jurisdictional ITAT, decision in the case of a CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). Respectfully following the decision over the issue, the AO is directed to of genuine expenditure of Rs.30,42,13,444/-.” 7. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance in question holding that carriage fees does not come within the ambit of the definition of Royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct t…

Oberoi Glass House, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

ITA 2331/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 40

…ncerns, therefore, he held that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing notional income is justified. 23. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Chanda Bhoy and Jassa Boy (2012) 49 SOT 448 (Mum) submitted that under identical circumstances the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition on account of notional interest. 24. It is the submission of the Ld. DR that assessee has not fulfilled the condition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Buildtech Vs. CIT. 25. I find that the…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ubj Broadcasting Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1205/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1205/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) िनधा"रणवष" Acit-16(1) M/S. Ubj Broadcasting Private Ltd. बनाम नाम/ Room No.439, 4Th Floor नाम नाम 6Th Floor, Adhikari Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Oberoi Complex, New Link Road Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053. ःथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcu-1341-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Nikunj Gada, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)

…st appellate authority, convinced with alternative plea, concurred with the stand of assessee and concluded the matter in assessee’s favor in the following manner: - 6.4 It is further seen that Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 has held that it is not the case that assessee has not deducted any amount. Assessee had deducted tax u/s 192 of the ITA and therefore provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the ITA do not apply as the said provision can be invoked only in the event of non deduction of tax but not for lesser deduction of tax. Further the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court vi…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Videocon D2H Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6795/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhacit- 16(1), M/S Videocon D2H Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar (Formerly Known As Bharat Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Business Channels Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 171/C-Wing, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccb1409R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms S. Padmaja (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Bhupendra Karkhanis (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Ms S. Padmaja (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Bhupendra Karkhanis (AR)
Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 253Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…n of TDS. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (46 taxmmann.com (444) (Calcutta High Court), CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (15 taxmmann.com 289) (Kolkata ITAT), DCIT vs. Chandubhoy and Jassobhoy (49 SOT 448) (Mumbai ITAT) & Nitin Panchamiya vs. ACIT 950 SOT 468) (Mumbai ITAT). The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee cannot hold liable on subsequent amendment made on account of retrospective amendment in the law. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision in case of Channel Guide India Ltd. vs.…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. T.V. Vision Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-

ITA 3387/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit -16(1), M/S T.V. Vision Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Adhikari Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Oberoi Complex, New Link Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aacct7276Q

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 44ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…such payment to cable operators should be subject to TDS @2% u/s 194C. Further appellant gets support from the jurisdictional ITAT, decision in the case of a CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). Respectfully following the decision over the issue, the AO is directed to of genuine expenditure of Rs.30,42,13,444/-.” 7. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance in question holding that carriage fees does not come within the ambit of the definition of Royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct…