IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 796 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income-Tax Appellant v/s. M/s. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant Mr. F. Irani a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Revenue has urged following questions of law for our consideration :- (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is correct in holding that placement fees / carriage fees paid to cable operators / MSO/ DTH Operators are payments for work contract covered u/s 194C and not fees for technical services u/s 194J, without 1 of 4 Uday S. Jagtap 796-17-ITXA-41=.doc appreciating that services rendered by assessee are technical in nature ? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is correct in holding that uplinking charges paid to TV-18 India Ltd. for up-linking its channels / signals from TV-18 s up-linking centre are payments for work contract covered u/s 194C and not fees towards royalty u/s 194J, without appreciating that services received by assessee are technical in nature ? (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is justified in holding that payment for production of programme constitutes payment for work u/s 194C and not fees for royalty and technical services u/s 194J, without appreciating that such payments are in nature of royalty and technical fees ? (d) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was correct in accepting claim of assessee that tax was deductible under Section 194C on placement fees / carriage fees by treating it as contract work by restoring to interpretative reasoning and not under section 194J of I.T. Act without appreciating definition of fees for technical services given in section 194J and without appreciating that as per settled principle of jurisprudence, this exercise is required only when law is unclear? 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2019 08:09:12 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 796-17-ITXA-41=.doc (e) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in rejecting order of Assessing Officer by holding that assessee is not in default u/s 201(1) in respect of amount of tax which has not been deducted from payments made under required sections and that assessee is not liable for levy of interest under section 201(1A)? 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing in support of appeal very fairly states that identical questions had been raised by Revenue from order of Tribunal dated 14 th October, 2015 relating to Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in respect of same respondent. Revenue had filed two appeals being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1410 of 2016 and 1409 of 2016 from order dated 14th October, 2015 of Tribunal in respect of aforesaid two assessment years. All aforesaid questions were dismissed by this Court by its order dated 10 th January, 2019 as not giving rise to any substantial question of law and thus, not entertained. 4. Therefore, for reasons indicated in our order dated 10 th 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2019 08:09:12 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 796-17-ITXA-41=.doc January, 2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1410 of 2016 and 1409 of 2016, these questions also do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 4 of 4 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd