TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- AY 2012-13: 1. "The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs. 50,19,52,442/- in place of Rs. 197,70,15,716/- (As determined by AO) by holding that the liability of withholding of TDS was to the extent of chargeable sum in the case of Formula One World Championship (FOWC) i.e. income determined in the case of FOWC by the AO as attributable sum to PE in India. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 32,98,870/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of bank guarantee Commission paid by assessee by holding that there was no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,86,02,578/- u/s 40(a)(ia) being the payment made to M/s Formula One Management Ltd.(FOM) by holding that the liability of withholding of TDS was to the extent of chargeable sum in respect of M/s Formula One Management Ltd. (FOM)." 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in these appeals the first issue was whether the fees paid to M/s Formula One World Championship Ltd. (FOWC) & M/s Formula One Management Ltd. (FOM) were liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a) for non-deduction of tax. Ld. Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer (for short "AO") while completing the assessment disallowed the gross fee paid to FOWC as well as FOM and the Ld.CIT(A) held that the disallowanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) FOM had filed their returns and had paid their tax dues. 3. The Ld. Counsel further submits that coming to ground no.3 of the Revenue which is in respect of the deletion of disallowance of business expense on account of bank guarantee Commission paid to scheduled banks u/s 40(a) for non-deduction of tax. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2017 arising out of the appeal filed against 201 orders dated 25.03.2017. 4. The ld. DR fairly submits that the issues have been decided by the Tribunal. 5. Heard rival contentions. 6. In so far as the fee paid to Formula One World Championship Ltd. to UK (FOWC), we find that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the reason that the relevant income had been declared and assessed in the hands of the payee and tax thereon had been paid. However, the CIT(A) has accepted that disallowance should be restricted to the chargeable sum comprised in the Grossed RPC fess as assessed in the hands of FOWC. The CIT(A) while determining the chargeable sum in the RPC fees with the total income charged in the hands of the FOWC including the chargeable sum in broadcasting revenue as well which was not paid by the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) directed the disallowance to be restricted to Rs. 501,952,5442/- instead of Rs. 305,822,666/- in Assessment Year 2012-13, Rs. 368,025,412/- instead of Rs. 228,973,487/- in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 506,415,998/- instead of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in India at 56% of the global profit as it has been worked out in case of Formula One World Championship ("FOWC"). The attributable profit of PE in India in case of FOM has been worked out at (-)63,02,232. It is also ascertained that no order u/s 201 has been passed by the Assessing Officer for determining the TDS liability in case of M/s Jaypee Sports International Limited now M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited and the chargeable sum worked at by department in the assessment order has became final. 5.5.7 In case of Formula One World Championship ("FOWC") as it is discussed in forgoing para of this order that order u/s 201 was passed for determining the TDS liability in case of M/s Jaypee Sports International Limited which was subje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowance of bank guarantee Commission, we find that the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 4279 to 4281/2015 dated 31.08.2017, wherein the Tribunal held as under: "20. Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to deduction of tax at source on bank guarantee commission u/s 194H of the Act. In the case before us the Id CIT(A) has held that on bank guarantee commission no tax is required to be deducted following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Living Media India Ltd dated 06.05.2008. Furthermore, the assessee is acting not as an agent but on principle-to-principle basis. 21. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and we....