News Update

I-T - Technical issues faced in filing TDS return online are bona fide reason for delayed filing of TDS returns - penalty not warranted: ITATST - Refund - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - No provision in CCR imposes restriction of requirement of registration as condition precedent for claiming CENVAT credit: CESTATMCA invites comments on Draft on cross-border insolvencyCCI gives nod to acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer AGSmuggling racket busted - Delhi DRI nabs 8 persons & seizes gold worth Rs 2.1 CroreIlegal immigration - enlarge labour market to deal with it: OECDShillong is selected as 100th city under Smart City MissionChief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian quits on family commitments groundCommerce Minister releases National Strategy for StandardizationComputation of interest - CBDT invites comments on amendment in Rule 10CB (See 'TII Brief')CBDT notifies PFC & Railway Finance Corp 54EC Capital Gains BondsGovt relieves IRS officer Nilimesh Baruah to join CTPA in OECD as Sr AdvisorGST Metered (See 'JEST GST on GST Home Page')J&K is back to Governor's Rule - 4th time in last 10 yearsGST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part II (See 'TOG INSIGHT' on 'Taxongo.com')ST - There is distinction between interest earned by bank and disaggregation of equated monthly instalments earned by financial institution engaged in financial leasing and hire-purchase: CESTATCMs subgroup set up on approaches to Agriculture & MGNREGSST - Fitment within an alternative classification suffices to erase proposal in the notice but cannot crystallize liability unless alternative was also proposed in notice: CESTATAdopt A Heritage Scheme - 6 MoUs are at advanced stageI-T - When statements taken during search are based on documents indicating that assessee collected cash receipts in addition to cheques, such situation comes within sweep of Explanation 5A(b) to Sec. 271(1)(c): ITATGovt targets 5GW wind energy by 2022Notfn. 12/2003-ST speaks of 'value' of materials and not 'cost' of materials - no reason to demand service tax on 10% profit at which material is sold by appellant: CESTATIndia aspires to be USD 10 trillion economy by 2030: DEA Secretarye-Way Bill - Govt introduces Unique Common Enrolment Number facility for transporters registered in many States with same PANCBIC revises new exchange rate for South African RandCBIC grants Non-Functional upgradation on ad hoc basis to 15 officersRailways aims at 2030 to become zero carbon emitterNIFTEM has potential to become Harvard of food processing sector: MinisterGST - Five key aspects GST payers should not miss!Pre-notice Regulations - Boon or Bane?HM calls for expediting online cybercrime reporting portal
 
I-T - Sharing of proceedings of film between film distributors & film exhibitor, would not attract Sec 194-I- YES: HC

By TIOL News Service

JAIPUR, FEB 17, 2017: THE ISSUE IS - Whether sharing of proceedings of film between film distributors and film exhibitor owning a cinema theatre, would warrant deduction of taxes u/s 194I. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The assessee firm is engaged in this business of purchase and sales of shares and is also engaged in films business. It had filed the return declaring NIL income. However, subsequently the case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee. In response, the AR of the assessee attended the hearing and filed written submission. However, assessment was carried without considering those. On appeal, the CIT(A) also confirms the order of AO. When the matter reached Tribunal, the term of agreement were considered and it was observed that payments made by assessee were not towards rental expenses and hence no TDS u/s 194-I would be applicable to such case. Accordingly, the entire disallowance of Rs. 65,00,000/- made on account of non-deduction of TDS was deleted.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ it is clearly founded by the ITAT that the assessee was not responsible for any of the above said activities rather it is M/s. Show Time Entertainment pvt. Ltd. was only responsible for managing and running the due exhibition of pictures at the cinema hall after complying all the statutory requirements. Further The counsel for the assessee upon the Board's Circular No. 1294 Where by the Board has clarified that the provisions of section 194-I of the IT Act to the sharing of proceedings of film between film distributors and film exhibitor owning a cinema theatre, are not attracted to such payment. We find that the above said circular squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, in the present case assured and guaranteed return by the assessee was given to the cinema owner is case of exhibiting of films by the cinema owner. There is no letting out of the cinema hall, plant and machinery, furniture and fixture for exhibition of films. We feel that the dominant and prime intention of the parties entered into agreement to conduct business and to give comfort level by the assessee to the cinema owner. The day to day maintenance and running of commercial activities remained with the owner of the cinema owner and the assessee had no control or interference whatsoever. The cinema was exclusively owned and managed by the cinema owner and the assessee was having no interference with selecting the films, exhibiting the films, issuing tickets, paying tax, maintaining statutory Compliances Whatsoever. Thus the agreement was not of letting out but was for conduct of business. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper, no interference is called for. In the opinion of this court, is not rent it was the collection which was assured by the parties to the agreement.

(See 2017-TIOL-332-HC-RAJ-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS