Payments for channel placement & dubbing under sec 194C, not sec 194J. Delay in cross objections valid.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that payments for channel placement and dubbing charges are covered under section 194C, not section 194J. The Tribunal found the reasons for the assessee's delay in filing cross objections satisfactory and dismissed both the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross objections.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 194C or section 194J for payment made to cable operators/DTH operators for channel placement.
2. Applicability of section 194J or section 194C for dubbing charges.
3. Liability of the assessee to pay principal tax under section 201(1) without verifying the payment of tax by the deductee cable operators.
4. Levying of interest under section 201(1A) from the date the tax was deductible till the date of the order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 194C or Section 194J for Payment Made to Cable Operators/DTH Operators for Channel Placement:
The primary issue was whether the payment made to cable operators/DTH operators for channel placement should be subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) under section 194C or section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee deducted tax at source at the rate of 2% under section 194C, while the Assessing Officer contended that the payment should be subjected to TDS at the rate of 10% under section 194J, considering it as a payment for technical services.

The CIT(A) ruled that the payment for channel placement falls under section 194C. This decision was supported by previous Tribunal decisions, including ACIT Vs. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. and ACIT Vs. M/s. NGC Networks (I) Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that such fees do not fall under section 194J but under section 194C.

The Tribunal reiterated that the work of broadcasting and telecasting, including the production of programs for such broadcasting or telecasting, falls under the definition of "work" as per clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 194C. The Tribunal also referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana's decision in Kurukshetra Darpans (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, which supported the application of section 194C for payments related to broadcasting and telecasting.

2. Applicability of Section 194J or Section 194C for Dubbing Charges:
The second issue was whether the dubbing charges should be subjected to TDS under section 194J or section 194C. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both concluded that the payment made for dubbing work falls under section 194C and not under section 194J. This conclusion was based on the Tribunal's previous decisions, including ACIT Vs. Manish Dutt and UTV Entertainment Television Limited, where it was held that dubbing work constitutes a contract for carrying out work and thus falls under section 194C.

3. Liability of the Assessee to Pay Principal Tax Under Section 201(1) Without Verifying the Payment of Tax by the Deductee Cable Operators:
The assessee contended that the TDS officer erred in holding the assessee liable to pay the principal amount of tax under section 201(1) without verifying whether the deductee cable operators had paid tax on such income in their respective returns/assessments. This issue was not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

4. Levying of Interest Under Section 201(1A) from the Date the Tax Was Deductible Till the Date of the Order:
The assessee also contended that the TDS officer erred in levying interest under section 201(1A) from the date the tax was deductible till the date of the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. This issue was also not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the payments for channel placement and dubbing charges fall under section 194C and not under section 194J. Consequently, the cross objections filed by the assessee became infructuous. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the cross objections by the assessee, finding the reasons for the delay satisfactory. Thus, the appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee were dismissed.

---