Revenue appeals dismissed for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11. 2009-10 appeal partly allowed.

The appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2010-11 were dismissed, while the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decisions were primarily based on existing legal precedents and the factual matrix presented.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of employees' contribution to PF.
2. Disallowance of transponder charges as capital expenditure.
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) for differential license fees.
4. Disallowance of payments made to Bangladesh Cricket Control Board.
5. Disallowance of expenses for dealers' conference and channel relaunch.
6. Disallowance of depreciation due to lack of evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to PF:
The revenue contended that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 18,54,499/- being employees' contribution to PF made after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT (A), which were based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC). It was held that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return, no addition can be made.

2. Disallowance of Transponder Charges as Capital Expenditure:
The revenue argued that the payment towards Satellite space fees/Transponder Charges to Panamsat International System Inc. was capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT (A), which held that the charges were recurring in nature and not a one-time payment, thus constituting revenue expenditure. The decision was based on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's judgment in Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. vs. DIT 332 ITR 340, and the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Company vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC).

3. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) for Differential License Fees:
The revenue contended that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,44,17,143/- being the differential license fees payable to sister concern M/s Nimbus. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s findings, which concluded that the appellant had not given any amount as favor to its sister concern by adjusting the license fees for canceled matches. The terms between the appellant and Nimbus were on a back-to-back basis as per the agreement with BCCI, a third party. The AO's inference of collusion was not supported by evidence.

4. Disallowance of Payments Made to Bangladesh Cricket Control Board:
The revenue argued that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to allow the claim for deduction of payments made to Bangladesh Cricket Control Board towards broadcasting rights. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s findings that there was a mutual understanding between the assessee and BCCB for live telecast rights, and the formal agreement's delay did not negate the contractual obligations. The payments were not disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) as the ITAT had previously ruled that such payments were not in the nature of royalty.

5. Disallowance of Expenses for Dealers' Conference and Channel Relaunch:
The revenue contended that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing expenses incurred on dealers' conference and channel relaunch as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s findings, which relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Asian Paints (2016) 243 Taxman 348 (Bom) and other judgments, concluding that the expenses were for advertising and sales promotion, thus revenue in nature.

6. Disallowance of Depreciation Due to Lack of Evidence:
The revenue argued that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 3,40,818/- in contravention of Rule 46A, as the assessee had not produced purchase bills during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for verification of the bills produced during the appellate proceedings, as the Ld. CIT (A) had not verified the bills nor called for a remand report.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2010-11 were dismissed, while the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decisions were primarily based on existing legal precedents and the factual matrix presented.

---