2017 (8) TMI 1057

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in cancelling the demand raised by the A.O u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for short deduction of tax at source. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of production of Televisions Serials and shows. The survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 18.08.2011. The A.O noticed that the assessee has made payments to various T.V channels for broadcasting its serials during fixed time slots. The assessee treated this telecasting fees paid to the T.V Channels as contract payments and accordingly deducted tax at source at the rate of 2% u/s. 194C of the Act. The A.O, however, took the view that the telecasting fees paid wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. Having heard the rival contentions and also upon going through the record, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order. For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the orders of the bench Ld. CIT(A). 5.1 I have considered the averments made in the impugned order and also the written and oral submissions of the learned A.R. of the appellant and also the Board's Circular and judicial pronouncement relied upon by him. In the instant case, the appellant is a production company and the impugned payments are telecasting fees to channels for broadcasting its serials during fixed time slots. According to the A.O., 'fixed time slot' is the important crux of the matter in as much as it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cording to the A.G., the same term cannot appear in two different Sections if the same are mutually exclusive. In this context, it is noted that here in the instant case, the appellant company has not made the payments for advertising, rather it is the appellant company, which earns income from selling advertising space during broadcast of TV serials as apparent from paragraph 3 of the impugned order itself. Hence, the term 'advertising' does not come into play in the instant case. It appears that the A.G. got confused while interpreting the provisions of law. 5.3 The issue in relation to application of Section 194C to 194J with respect to payments for telecasting fees/broadcasting fees arose for consideration before the Hcn'....