TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT(A), from the record of the case, noticed that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 6,36,19,146/- under the head 'Pay Channel subscription' in the profit & loss Account. The Ld. PCIT was of the view that as per the provisions of section 194C Explanation III of the Act, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the payments made to various TV Channels which was not done by the assessee. He observed that though the Assessing Officer had raised a query in this respect to the assessee, however, the Assessing Officer without proper application of mind accepted the plea of the assessee that it was not liable to deduct tax at source on the basis of the decision of the Agra Bench of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the non-deduction of TDS which was replied by the assessee. That at the time of assessment, the Assessing Officer had verified the bills and vouchers etc. and did not find any expenditure liable for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. That even the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of 'Kurukshetra Darpans (P) Ltd vs CIT' (supra) was also discussed in the decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'ITO vs Balkrishan Gupta' (supra), therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. Further, that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was one of the possible views, hence, the order cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied o....