Tribunal Upheld Assessee's Position on Disallowance

The Tribunal upheld the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision in ITA 1413/M/2014, ruling that the Assessee was not liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) due to inapplicability of retrospective amendments at the time of deduction. The cross objections in C.O. No.71/M/2014 were found infructuous. In ITA No.1414/M/2014 & CO No. 72/Mum/2014, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and cross objections, aligning with its previous decisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
Appeal against directions of Dispute Resolution Panel, disallowance of channel placement fees, applicability of TDS provisions, retrospective amendments, cross objections by assessee, common issues in appeals and cross objections.

ITA 1413/M/2014:
The Assessing Officers (AOs) filed appeals against the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) regarding the disallowance of channel placement fees. The main issue was the justification of deleting the disallowance of fees due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194J. The DRP held that the fees paid did not fall under the definition of royalty, and hence, the provision of section 194J was not applicable. The Tribunal cited precedents and held that the law cannot compel a person to do something impossible to perform. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, stating that the Assessee was not liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) due to the retrospective amendments not being applicable at the time of deduction.

C.O. No.71/M/2014:
The cross objections filed by the assessee supported the DRP's direction and did not raise any new issues. The Tribunal found the cross objections infructuous based on the decision in the appeal filed by the AO.

ITA No.1414/M/2014 & CO No. 72/Mum/2014 (2009-10):
The facts of these cases were similar to the previous appeal, with the main issue being the disallowance of channel placement fees. Following the decision in the previous case, the Tribunal decided the effective ground of appeal against the AO. The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the assessee were infructuous based on the earlier decision.

In conclusion, the appeals of the AO and cross objections by both assesses were dismissed based on the Tribunal's analysis and decisions in the related cases.

---