Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
The issue in dispute in these both appeal is whether the transponder charges paid by the assessee to three entities listed above is in the nature of the ‘royalty’ and liable for withholding tax. In respect of the three above listed entities, the Tribunal (supra) has held as under:
“9. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the appeal for assessment year 2015-1 6, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts of one of the parties in whose case, the assessee sought determination of sum chargeable under the Act and consequential deduction of tax at source u/s 195(2) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to master agreement between the assessee and Intelsat Corporation, USA to highlight the services of transponding facility provided by the party. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that while passing the order dated 28/03/2014, 04/02/2015 and 10/02/2015 in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal was not having any benefit of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd (ITA 1487 of 2018) and, therefore, transponder payments were held to be royalty, taxable under the Act/ Treaty. However, subsequently, in ITA Nos. 599 to 614/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2013-14 to 2015-16 in order dated 09/07/2018 following the decision of GE Technology Centre Pvt Ltd (supra) held that since no income was chargeable in the hands of the recipient, there was no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source on the similar payments for transponder facility. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has followed binding precedents of jurisdictional High Court in the case of New Sports Broadcast Put Ltd (supra), wherein it is held that transponder charges are not in the nature of’ Royalty income in the hands of recipients despite amendment to section 9(1) (vi) of the Act.
10. In view of binding precedent of the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court followed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respective impugned orders, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute relevant to the orders of Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) of theAct. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in impugned orders. Grounds raised by the Revenue in these appeals are accordingly dismissed.”
The issue being identical, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
