Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order on TDS for advertisement; no employer-employee relationship found.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s order regarding TDS issues on advertisement payments. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross objections on consultancy charges, ruling no employer-employee relationship existed and directing the A.O. to accept the assessee's contentions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Justification of deleting interest levied u/s.201(1A) on payments made for display of advertisement.
2. Applicability of section 194C or 194J for TDS on advertisement payments.
3. Nature of consultancy charges - salary under section 192 or professional fees under section 194J.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee were against the same order of the ld. CIT(A)-14, Mumbai for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12. The main issue was the deletion of interest u/s.201(1A) on payments made for displaying advertisements. The ld. CIT(A) held that the provisions of section 194C, not 194I, applied as the assessee subcontracted work to hoarding contractors, not liable for rent deduction u/s.194I.

2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) argued that the payments for hiring hoarding sites were liable to TDS u/s.194I, not 194C. The Revenue contended that advertising services fall under professional services for TDS u/s.194J. The Tribunal found that the assessee's role was limited to displaying clients' ads on hoardings, not renting or owning hoarding sites, thus attracting section 194C.

3. Regarding consultancy charges, the A.O. claimed an employer-employee relationship, requiring TDS u/s.192. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this, but the Tribunal disagreed. The consultants were appointed as consultants, not employees, and the restrictive clauses were to protect the company's interests. As the consultants charged service tax and paid it to the government, indicating a professional relationship, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s order on TDS issues related to advertisement payments. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objections regarding consultancy charges, finding no employer-employee relationship and directing the A.O. to accept the assessee's contentions.

---