Case Law Details
DCIT (TDS) Vs Kodak India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
The issue under consideration is whether the services, the modeling, rendered by Ms. Katrina Kaif in this case constitutes professional service and the fee paid to her for modeling with the purpose of marketing of the camera products of the assessee liable for TDS u/s 194J?
Undisputedly, Ms. Katrina Kaif has received the said fee not in connection with production of a cinematographic film and the same received admittedly for modeling. She has not received the sum for acting in a autographic Film. Receipts for all modeling and acting skills of an individual do not attract the said section 194J, unless, they are part of the production of a cinematographic film.
In the original sense of the modeling, the same may be a profession and the receipts earned by such models may be professional receipts. But the fact is that modeling Is not a defined or notified profession either in the Income tax Act, 1961 or in the Notifications, In fact, there are many such unnotified professions and such ones cannot be brought under the provisions of section 194J of the Act.
In the instant, admittedly, the services rendered have nothing to do with the production of a cinematographic film. Further, before parting with the order, it is pertinent to mention that a person can have many skills i.e acting skills in Films, modeling skills for display of merchandise, singing skills etc. and such person can make earning out of such skills. It is not that total earning of that person in lieu of services rendered must attract the provisions of section 194J of the Act. Therefore, the taxable receipts u/s 194J of the Act are services-specific and not person specific. Therefore, the impugned payments made by the assessee to Matrix India on behalf of Ms Katrina Kaif do not attract the provisions of section 194J of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised are allowed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
