2014 (8) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate tribunal rules services by MSO not technical under section 194J.

The appellate tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the services provided by the MSO were not technical in nature and did not fall under ... TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - Uplinking and Band Width Services and Air Time service charges - Held that:- As relying on the case Sristi Television [2013 (12) TMI 1655 - ITAT KOLKATA] we agree with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that no technical services were involved in payment of carriage charges made by the assessee for broadcasting of the programmes produced by the assessee. The assessee produced various types of programmes/serials and news and these were telecasted/broadcasted through Multi System Operators. Payments in this regard were made as carriage charges for which payment of tax was deductible under section 194C of the Income Tax Act. As per definition of technical services given in Explanation to Section 9 of the Act, the deductee should have rendered managerial, technical or consultancy services. In this case, we find that there is no such finding of the Assessing Officer. The deductee has only telecasted the programmes produced by the assessee. Telecasting on the programme was covered under section 194C of the Act. - Decided against revenue Issues Involved:1. Nature of services provided by MSO (Multi System Operator) - technical or not.2. Whether section 194J is applicable to the services provided by the MSO.Issue 1: Nature of services provided by MSOThe case involved the assessment of the nature of services provided by the Multi System Operator (MSO) to the assessee company engaged in Media Broadcasting and Telecasting. The Assessing Officer applied section 194J, considering the services to be technical in nature. However, the ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the services of uplinking, bandwidth services, airtime, and channel carriage provided by the MSO were related to broadcasting and telecasting, falling under the definition of 'work' in section 194C. The services required the use of sophisticated equipment for transmission, and the payments were made after deducting TDS u/s. 194C. The ld. CIT(A) relied on relevant judgments and the fact that the MSO was licensed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that no technical services were involved in the carriage charges paid by the assessee for broadcasting the programs produced by them. The Tribunal referred to the definition of technical services and relevant case laws to support its decision.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 194JThe second issue revolved around the applicability of section 194J to the services provided by the MSO. The Tribunal analyzed sections 194C and 194J, highlighting that the assessee produced various programs and news telecasted through MSOs, with payments made as carriage charges. The Tribunal concurred with the ld. CIT(A) that no technical services were involved in these payments, as the MSO only telecasted the programs produced by the assessee. Referring to case laws and the definition of technical services, the Tribunal concluded that the services provided did not fall under the purview of section 194J. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision based on the precedents and dismissed the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee, ruling that the services provided by the MSO were not technical in nature and did not attract the provisions of section 194J. The judgment emphasized the distinction between technical and non-technical services in the context of broadcasting and telecasting operations, citing relevant legal definitions and precedents to support the decision. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the order in favor of the assessee was upheld.