AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals arises from the action of the income-tax authorities in holding that tax was liable to be deducted at source u/s 194-I of the Act in respect of display charges paid by the assessee as against the stand of the assessee that the tax was liable to be deducted in terms of Sec. 194C of the Act on such payments. 3. We may take-up for discussion the facts in relation to appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04 wherein the Assessing Officer noted that assessee paid display charges to private parties amounting to Rs. 8,34,65,260/-, and as per the Assessing Officer, tax was required to be deducted at source u/s 194-I of the Act as the charges were paid for taking hoarding space on rent. On being asked to explain, assessee pointed out that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer in law and also on facts. The claim of the assessee was that the payments in question were in terms of specific contracts made with the respective parties and assessee was providing specific services to its clients as per the Service Agreements which were not possible merely by taking the space on rent. The CIT(A) noted that assessee did not furnish specific agreements or contracts with the concerned parties and he proceeded on the basis of the finding of the Assessing Officer that the payments in the name of 'display charges' made to private parties was for sub-letting space for display of advertisements of the clients of the assessee. In the aforesaid situation, CIT(A) referred to the CBDT Circular no. 715 dated 08.08.19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [2005] 4 SOT 105 (Mum.); iv) DCIT vs Madison Communication Pvt. Ltd., [2015] 152 ITD 759 (Mum.); v) Ogilvy & Mather Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, [2015] 155 ITD 475 (Mum.); and, vi) DCIT vs Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7055/Mum/2012 (Mum.) The learned representative vehemently pointed out that the contracts in question have been undertaken with concerns who are engaged in the activity of advertising and, therefore, it is not a case where assessee has contracted with site-owners for obtaining sub-letting of hoarding so as to fall within the purview of Sec. 194-I of the Act. The learned representative referred to page 1 of the Paper Book, wherein is placed the work contract for display charges with one, M/s. Brigh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders of the authorities below and pointed out that on the basis of material before the Assessing Officer, it stood established that the payment was for taking the hoarding space on rent and thus, Sec. 194-I of the Act was rightly invoked. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As per our aforesaid discussion, the basic point of difference between the assessee and the Revenue is the applicability of Sec. 194C vis-a-vis Sec. 194-I of the Act. The appellant before us is a concern which is engaged in advertising and publicity, including organising advertisement of its clients on hoardings. The dispute pertains to the tax that is required to be deducted at source on payments made under the head 'display charges'. The stand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act and not u/s 194C of the Act. In our view, the aforesaid clarification by the CBDT clearly brings out that what is of essence is to examine the nature and terms and conditions of the agreement in pursuance to which the questioned payments have been made by the assessee. In that context, we find that the Assessing Officer has gone by a sample contract, which is dated 01.01.2011 and is clearly not relevant to the period under dispute. Therefore, the reference and reliance on such contract by the Assessing Officer is of no avail to adjudicate the controversy in question for the period under consideration. In this background, the learned representative in the course of hearing submitted that the matter may be sent back to the file of the As....