TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue appeal on Channel Placement Fees disallowance dismissed; High Court upholds assessee's position.</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Incometax- 16 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Asstt. Commissioner of Incometax- 16 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) of 'Channel Placement Fees'2. Interpretation of statutory provisions for tax deduction3. Application of legal principles in income tax proceedingsAnalysis:1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) under Sec.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) of 'Channel Placement Fees'. The revenue raised grounds questioning the justification of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in directing to delete the disallowance based on previous tribunal decisions and High Court rulings.2. The A.O observed that the assessee had paid 'Channel Placement Fees' and deducted tax at source under Sec. 194C instead of Sec. 194J. The A.O proposed disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) due to short deduction of tax. The DRP, considering past decisions and tribunal rulings, directed the A.O to delete the disallowance, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court and Tribunal based on retrospective statutory amendments and legal principles.3. The issue revolved around whether the assessee was liable for deduction of tax at source under Sec.194J for 'Channel Placement Fees' and if the disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) was justified. The High Court's judgment emphasized that the law does not compel a person to perform an impossible act due to retrospective amendments. The Tribunal and coordinate benches supported the position that tax deduction under Sec. 194C was appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decisions of the DRP, High Court, and Tribunal, emphasizing the correct application of statutory provisions and legal principles in income tax proceedings. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed based on the established interpretations and precedents in the case of 'Channel Placement Fees'.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
