Case Law Details
CIT Vs. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment.
In the present facts, the amendment by introduction of Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act took place in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 1976. This could not be have been contemplated by the Respondent when he made the payment which was subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194C of the Act during the subject Assessment Year, would require deduction under Section 194J of the Act due to some future amendment with retrospective effect.
Further, we also notice that under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, under which the expenditure has been disallowed by the Revenue, meaning of royalty as defined therein, is that as provided in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and not Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Thus, the dis allowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act can only be if the payment is ‘Royalty’ in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act. Undisputedly, the payment made for channel placement as a fee, is not royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, no dis allowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(vi) of the Act, can be made in the present facts.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
