Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 February, 2015
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "G"
यायपीठ मुब
ं ई म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "G", MUMBAI
ी आर.
आर. सी.
सी. शमा , लेखा सद य एवं ी िववेक वमा , याियक सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITAs No. : 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
(Assessment years: 2006-07 to 2010-11)
DCIT (TDS)-3(1), Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises
1012, 10th Floor, Smt K G Mittal Ltd.,
Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., 135, Continental Bldg., Dr A B
Charni Road (West), Road, Worli,
Mumbai - 400 002 Mumbai -400 018
ःथयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AAACZ 0243 R
अपीलाथ (Appellant) ू यथ (Respondent)
Appellant by : Smt. Abha Kala Chanda
Respondent by : Shri Vijay Mehta
सुनवाई क# तार%ख /Date of Hearing : 17-11-2014
घोषणा क# तार%ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20-02-2015
आदेश
ORDER
ी िववेक वमा , या स:
स:
PER VIVEK VARMA, JM:
The following appeals have been filed by the department:
Sr. No. Asst. Year ITA No. CIT(A) Date of CIT(A) Order 1 2006-07 3931/Mum/2013 14. Mumbai 26.04.2011 2 2007-08 3932/Mum/2013 14. Mumbai 26.04.2011 3 2008-09 3933/Mum/2013 14, Mumbai 26.04.2011 4 2009-10 3934/Mum/2013 14, Mumbai 26.04.2011 5 2010-11 3935/Mum/2013 14. Mumbai 26.04.2011
2. All the appeals have some common grounds. In this event, we, for the sake of convenience and brevity are disposing off the above appeals through this common and consolidated order.
3. Facts, common in all the years under consideration are that the assessee is engaged in the business of broadcast and distribution of TV Channels 2 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 production/commissioning/distribution/purchase/export sale of TV programmes, films, news and acts as a canvassing agent for space selling on TV channels. On 25.02.2009, the department undertook survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the assessee. In the course of survey operations, the revenue authorities sought verification of records to ascertain the deduction of TAS as per law. In the course of verification, the revenue officers came to the view that the assessee was either deducting TAS at a lower rate or was not deducting any TAS at all on various payments being made by the assessee. The AO called for a detailed explanation from the assessee in this regard, which did not find favour with the AO, who raised demands in various years in the order under provisions section(s) 201/201(1A) of the Act.
4. Since some of the issues raised are common in all the years, we are taking up ITA No. 3931/Mum/2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 as the lead year.
5. The following grounds have been raised by the department:
"1) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of carriage fee /placement fee paid by the assessee to various cable operators/MSO/DTH service providers holding the service provided was work within the meaning of section 1940 and not technical service u/s 194J.
2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cable operators /MSO/DTH service providers had not provided mere standard service of transmitting the signals of assessee's channels but through human intervention and application of mind provided specified technical service of placing assessee's channel on desired prime band and such service are technical service u/s 194J.
3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was in fact author of all the programme purchased by it and was fully in command of making such programme and therefore the payments made by it for production of such programme was in the nature of Technical fee within the 3 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 meaning of section 194J and therefore erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) determined on this account and holding the same within the meaning of provisions of section 194C.
4. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts brought on records by the Assessing officer that the acquisition of programme software involves transfer of rights of that programme to the assessee and such payments made by the assessee are clearly covered under the definition of Royalty within the meaning of royalty in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) to Section 9.
5. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce any agreement with event manager to justify that the payment was in the nature of work contract and also failed to appreciate that the onus was on the assessee to establish the nature of services were not in the nature of professional services.
6. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that that the event management service was in the nature of work contract u/s 194C and the same was not professional service u/s 194J especially when the assessee did not bring any evidence to justify the service was not in the nature of professional services within the meaning of section 194J.
7. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notification no F No. 275/43/2008-IT(B) dated 21.08.2008 was clarificatory in nature and the event management fee was always in the nature of professional services u/s 194J.
8. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by holding the equipment hire charges u/s 194C and failed to appreciate that the evidences available on records clearly show that the equipment hire charges were paid for services which were technical service within the meaning of section 194J.
9. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of equipment hire charges without appreciating the facts brought on records by the assessing officer.
10. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the purported reimbursement of expenses was in fact commission paid by the assessee to Zee Turner Ltd. and therefore the assessee was required to deduct TDS as per the provision u/s 194J of the I.T. Act on such payments to Zee Turner Ltd.
11. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee disguised the payment of commission to Zee Turner Ltd. in the form of reimbursement of expenses and therefore erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) so determined by the Assessing Officer.
4Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
12. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction which was determined on the basis of information available in Tax Audit Report especially when the assessee did not submit any evidence of payment of the unpaid TDS as reported in Tax Audit Report.
13. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce the evidence of payment of unpaid TDS as per tax audit report before the assessing officer whereas the CIT(A) claimed that the assessee paid the unpaid TDS before the completion of proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A).
14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand of Rs.9,68,90,071/- without properly appreciating the factual & legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the A.O. in order u/s 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961.
15. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of the hearing of the case or thereafter.
16. The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous be set aside and the A.O's order be restored".
6. The facts pertaining to these grounds are that the assessee pays carriage fee to cable operator/MSO for putting the channel on a particular frequency. This is done, because in India, broadcasters face bandwidth constraints. By doing this, the broadcaster gets better viewership and revenues. For taking this service from cable operator, the assessee pays carriage fee, on which it deducts TAS u/s 194C. According to the AO, the assessee should have deducted TAS u/s 194J, because
a) "According to the A.O. putting channels on particular bandwidth requires human application & technical expertise
b) Further, Section 194C applies only when standard fees is paid and not when carriage fees are paid for putting a channel on a particular bandwidth
c) Further, transmission of channel on a desired band for a fee shall not amount to 'work' as defined u/s 194C of the Act".
Accordingly, the assessee committed a default u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions. The CIT(A), after examining the entire issue, held, 5 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 "I have considered the facts of the case, the submissions and the arguments of the Ld. ARs as well as the order passed by the AO. The Appellant has made payment of placement charges to cable operators. It is evidenced from the placement Agreement that the cable operators agree with the Appellant to place the channels on certain preferred frequencies for a consideration which is termed as 'carriage or placement fee'. It s seen that the cable operators are as such required to place the channels on some frequency. Hence in my view, by agreeing to place the channel on any preferred band, the cable operator does not render any technical service to the distributor I TV channel. In terms of the provisions of section 194C of the Act, it is provided that expression work' shall include, inter alia, broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting and telecasting. Therefore, it is evident that where the payment is for a work involving broadcasting and telecasting, the same shall be subject to deduction of tax at source in terms of section 194C of the Act. 3.12 Thus, payment made to cable operators for placement charges should be regarded to be in the nature of carrying out work of broadcasting and telecasting and hence, subjected to TDS under section 1940 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kurukshetra Darpans (F) Ltd. v. CIT (2008) (169 Taxman
344). Therefore, I am of the view that payment of placement fee by the Appellant to the cable operators should be subjected to TDS @ 2% as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act.
3.13 I do not agree with the stand adopted by the AO in the impugned order that the placement fee should be treated as Fees for technical services for the purpose of TDS under section 194J of the Act. It is a settled position in law that merely because as part of providing any service or facility, if the service provider requires technical equipments that does not mean that any technology or technical service is provided by the service provider. Under the current arrangement, what the cable operator does is to only give preference to a particular channel over the other to place it on a particular band for which they charge a consideration. Merely because as part of providing this privilege/facility, it requires the cable operators to put the channel on a particular band using technical equipments, does not mean that any technology or technical service is provided by the cable operators to the Appellant. Having regard to the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd and various other judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant, placement of channels being a standard facility, the consideration in respect thereof would not qualify as fees for technical services for the purpose of section 194J of the Act. 3.14 Also, I agree with the Appellant that whether the payment is towards a standard fee or placement fee, the activities involved are the same in both cases. For placement of a channel, be it on a prime band or any 6 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 other band the cable operator performs the same activities and he is required to do so as part of the business he is carrying on i.e. of carrying channels to make them available to viewers! subscribers. If as per the AO, the payment of standard fee falls under section 194C of the Act then there is no reason as to why placement fee should not fall under section 194C of the Act since activities involved in both the cases are same. The placement of channel is part of the process of broadcasting/telecasting the channel and hence, payment of placement fee is for doing 'work' involving broadcasting of channels. Therefore, the same is liable for TDS under Section 194C in view of the specific definition of 'work' contained therein. 3.15 The Appellant has cited other decisions also in support of its contention as to why the payments cannot be treated as fees for technical services under Section 194J. The placement fee is a consideration for providing choice of the desired placement of the channels and it is not in the nature of 'fees for technical services'. Hence, I am of the view that provisions of Section 194J cannot apply to the payment of placement charges/ carriage fees. In view of the facts of the instant case, the payments of placement fee made to cable operators! MSOs are not in the nature of 'fees for technical services' because any services of managerial, technical or consultancy nature were not rendered by the cable operators! MSOs as defined in Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. This is so because in the process of placement of channels, the cable operators! MSOs are as such required to place the channels on some frequency. In any case, I have already held above, that in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 194C which deal with payments for broadcasting and telecasting work, other general provisions cannot apply.
3.16 Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act on the placement fee, the AO is directed not to consider the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act, as there is no short deduction of tax by the Appellant. The demand of tax of Rs. 81,93,378/- under Section 201(1) and consequential levy of interest at Rs. 48,56,174/- under section 201(1A) is hereby deleted".
8. The CIT(A) therefore, deleted the addition as made by the AO.
9. Against this order on the issue, as decided by the CIT(A), the department is in appeal before the ITAT.
10. Before us, the DR strongly supported the order of the AO, whereas, the AR supported the order of the CIT(A).
7Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
11. We have heard the arguments and have pursued the orders of both the revenue authorities and we find that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the provisions of law, i.e. in section 194C, "work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes". We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted u/s 194C.
12. In such a circumstance, we endorse the finding of the CIT(A) and respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the case of UTV entertainment Television Ltd. (supra), we sustain the order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds of appeal raised by the department.
13. Grounds no. 1 & 2 are therefore, rejected.
14. Grounds no. 3 & 4 pertain to deduction of TAS for purchase of programmes.
15. The facts are, that the assessee being broadcaster regularly purchases commissioned programs produced as per the agreement with Production House as per the script/concept approved by it. The production house produces the program for the assessee. The production house does not have or retain any right on the program but it delivers the source material of the program to assessee. The assessee deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act on the said payment made to Production House for purchase of programme.
8Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
16. On the contrary, the AO was of the opinion that the payments made by assessee to the Production House, for purchase of programmes, are in the nature of 'fees for technical services' and hence, TDS had to be deducted u/s 194J of the Act. He observed that the production house uses the services of professional artist i.e. actors, scrip-writers, dubbing artists, technicians etc. Since the Production House avails services of such people, therefore, the payments made to Production House would fall u/s 194J of the Act.
17. The AO therefore, invoked the provisions of section 201(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
18. Against this order of the AO, the assessee approached the CIT(A), who, after considering the detailed submission, held, "I have considered the submissions and the arguments of the Ld. AR. The appellant has made payment for production of programmes to various production houses. The Appellant hires the producers for producing TV programmes for it, on a commissioned work basis and pays consideration to the producers for producing the programmes. In terms of the provisions of section 194C of the Act, it is specifically provided that expression work' shall include, inter alia, broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting and telecasting. Therefore, it is evident that where the payment is for production of TV programmes, it is clearly covered by the provisions of section 194C. A perusal of the Agreements shows that the principal purpose of entering into the Agreements is to get the programmes produced by the producers on a commission work basis. The Producer is contracted to organize, plan, shoot and record promos/teaser for the TV programmes and the Appellant has the full creative and technical approval/authority over the programmes, including the outline, script, etc. In such case, I agree with the Appellant that the payment for carrying out the work of producing programmes on behalf of the Appellant is in the nature of 'work' as defined in section 194C of the Act and there can be no question of treating it as fees for technical services' under section 194J of the Act.
9Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 4.6 In view of the above, I do not agree with the stand adopted by the AO. He has completely ignored the crux of the transaction. Also, the decision relied upon by the appellant i.e. that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Prasar Bharti [2006] (158 Taxman 470) is on identical facts i.e., payments for production of TV programmes made on commissioned work basis. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
We observe that Explanation III, which was introduced Simultaneously with Section 194C, is very specific in its application to not only broadcasting and telecasting but also include production of programmes for such broadcasting and telecasting'. If, on the same date, two provisions are introduced in the Act, one specific to the activity sought to be taxed and the other in more general terms, resort must be had to the specific provision which manifests the intention of the Legislature. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the Revenue that programmes produced for television, including commissioned programmes', will fall outside the realm of Section 194C Explanation III of the Act. We find no infirmity in. the view taken by the ITAT which we hereby affirm.
4.7 Hence, it is evident that the AO was not justified in treating the payment for production of TV programmes as 'fees for technical services'. In any case, as also held in the aforesaid judgment, provisions of section 194C are more specific as compared to those of section 194J (since provisions of section 194C deal with the very payment in question - i.e. production of programmes, and not with a general category of payment like fees for technical services' as in section 194J), and hence, Section 194J, cannot apply to payments for production of programmes. Section 194C clearly states that payment for production of programmes constitutes payments for 'work' under section 194C. Accordingly, applying the said judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and also relying on the CBDT's circular, it is clear that the provisions of section 194C would prevail over section 194J of the Act in this case.
4.8 Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act on production payments, the AO is directed not to consider the Appellant to be an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act, as there is no short deduction of tax by the Appellant. The demand of tax of Rs. 6,68,97,644/- under Section 201(1) and consequential levy of interest at Rs. 4,44,86,904/- under section 201(1A) is hereby directed to be deleted".
19. The CIT(A), therefore, held the issue in favour of the assessee. Against this order of the CIT(A) the department is in appeal before the ITAT.
10Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
20. Before us, the DR relied on the order of the AO, whereas, the AR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
21. On hearing both the sides in detail, we find that the CIT(A) has applied the provisions of the Act, before coming to a conclusion, that u/s 194C "work includes production of programmes". We find that similar issue was contested before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Prasar Bharti, reported in 292 ITR 580 (Delhi) and followed by ACIT(TDS) vs Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd. in ITA No. 4548/Mum/2012, wherein it was held that payment to assigned producer for production of programme specifically falls within the ambit of clause (b) to Explanation III to section 194C of the Act, whereas, the provisions of section 194J of the Act are general in nature and therefore, provisions of section 194C would prevail over section 194J.
22. In these circumstances, we sustain the order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds of appeal raised by the department on the issue.
23. Grounds no. 3 & 4 are therefore, rejected.
24. Grounds no. 5, 6 and 7 pertain to deduction of TAS on Event Management Charges.
25. The assessee organizes events, for which it appoints event management companies. On the payment made to the event manager, the assessee deducted TAS u/s 194C, but according to the AO, the assessee should have deducted TAS u/s 194J. He, therefore, held the assessee to be in default of short deduction u/s 201(1) of the Act.
11Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
26. Against the order on the issue, the assessee supported the CIT(A), before whom the submissions were reiterated. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, held, "I have considered the submissions and the arguments of the AR. In my opinion, the event management services are in the nature of simple 'work contracts'. In the case of the appellant, the event managers have provided to the appellant the security personnel, labour personnel, contractors, men and women required for the events in various capacities. In carrying out such events, the event managers have not imparted any technical knowledge or training to the appellant or its personnel. Hence, in my opinion, the services rendered by the event managers are simply in the nature of works contract'. The AG has held the event management fees to be in the nature of 'fees for technical services' only because of the OBDT notification No. 88/2008 issued vide FNO. 275/43/2008-IT(B), dated 21-08-2008. Since it has been issued later, on 21I'/2008, it cannot be applied to the current year. Earlier to this notification, none of the circulars of the Board covered the 'event management fees' specifically and hence such contracts for event management could not have been classified under any category other than the 'works contract'. The later notification dated 21-08-2008, in my opinion, cannot be applied retrospectively. Even the said notification itself states that 'this notification shall come into force with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette'.
5.6 In view of above discussion therefore, it is evident that the 'event management fees' paid by the appellant to its event managers cannot be held to be in the nature of ....for technical services' in the current year. I hold accordingly. Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act, the AC is directed not to consider the Appellant to be an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act as there is no short deduction by the Appellant. The demand of tax of Rs. 8,45,747/- under Section 201(1) and consequential levy of interest at Rs. 5,61,792/- under section 201(1A) is hereby directed to be delete".
23. The CIT(A), therefore, deleted the demand as raised by the AO.
24. Against this order of the CIT(A), the department is in appeal before the ITAT on this issue.
12Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
25. The DR vehemently argued the issue on behalf of the AO, whereas, the AR argued the correctness of the order of CIT(A).
26. After hearing both the parties, we find that the department is heavily relying on the Notification issued by the Board No. 88/2008/F. No. 275/43/2008 dated 21.08.2008, according to which it prescribes that TDS on fee for event management is to be u/s 194J. But this Notification in our opinion shall be prospective and shall not cover the payments made prior to the issue of Notification, as it does not bear any retrospective character.
27. We, therefore, sustain the order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the department.
28. Grounds no. 5, 6 & 7 are therefore, rejected.
29. Grounds no. 8 and 9 pertain to TDS on Equipment Hire Charges.
30. The facts are that companies, including the assessee hire equipments, labours and operators for their production units. On these payments, the assessee pays hire charges and deducts TAS under the provisions of section 194C. However, the AO held it to the FTS and therefore the TDS should have been u/s 194J and therefore invoked section 201(1).
31. Against this, the assessee approached the CIT(A) and reiterated the facts. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee held, "I have considered the above submissions of the appellant and the arguments of the Ld. ARs. First of all, in my opinion the 'equipment hire charges' paid by the appellant cannot in any case fall in the category of 'fees for technical services'. The AO has not made out a case 13 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 against the appellant that such 'equipment hire charges' are in the nature of rent and hence tax was liable to be deducted under section 194J of the Act. However, even for the said 'equipment hire charges' to be termed as rent, it was necessary that the equipment is taken on hire by the appellant and used by the appellant itself. The facts in the case of the appellant are not so. It is seen that the equipments have been taken on hire on wet lease basis, which includes equipments along-with operating staff. Further, other services are also provided by the vendor. Therefore, in my opinion the 'equipment hire charges' are squarely covered under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, CBDT circular No. 681 dated 08.03.1994 clarifies that 'the provisions of section 194C shall apply to all types of contracts for carrying out any work including transport contract, service contracts, advertisement contracts, broadcasting contracts, telecasting contracts, labour contracts, materials contracts and works contract.' In this regard, it may be noted that Circular No. 715 dated 08/08/1995 also supports the contention of the appellant in this regard that section 194C shall apply to all types of 'work contracts'. There is no separate or specific provision or clarification by CBDT in regard to equipment hire charges.
6.9 It is thus beyond doubt that equipment hire charges are covered under the provisions of section 1940 and I hold accordingly. Since, the Appellant has already deducted TDS under section 1940 of the Act, the AC is directed not to consider the Appellant to be an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act as there is no short deduction by the Appellant. The demand of tax of Rs. 23,68,523/- under Section 201(1) and consequential levy of interest at Rs. 15,41,694/- under section 201(1A) is hereby deleted".
32. The CIT(A), therefore deleted the additional tax liability computed by the AO.
33. Against order of the CIT(A), the department is before the ITAT on the issue of TDS on hire charges of equipment.
34. Before us, the DR argued the case of the AO, while the AR supported the order of the CIT(A).
35. We have heard the arguments and have perused the material on record and also pursued the orders of the revenue authorities.
14Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
36. In our opinion the CIT(A) has applied the provisions of the Act and have delved on the same. We also find that the AO termed the payment made for hire charges as FTS, which the CIT(A) has categorically demolished. We find that similar issue was dealt with by the coordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of ACIT (TDS) vs Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd., ITA No. 4548-4550/Mum/2012, wherein it was held that payment made by assessee under a contract, which is a part of production of programme, TDS is required to be deducted u/s 194C.
37. Keeping the relevant provision in mind as well as gainfully following the order of the ITAT in the case of Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that there was no mistake in the order of the CIT(A), which we sustain on the issue, thereby rejecting the ground as raised by the department.
38. Grounds no. 8 & 9 are therefore, rejected.
39. Grounds 10 & 11 pertain to TDS on reimbursement of commission expenses.
40. The facts are that the assessee paid commission to Zee Turner Ltd., which included reimbursement of dealer commission. On reimbursement of dealer commission, the assessee did not deduct TAS. This payment aggregated Rs. 17.56 crores, which included relief by way of certificate issued by the department u/s 197 certificate at Rs. 13.84 crores and the balance Rs. 3.72 crores was reimbursement.
41. The AO was of the view that the payment fell within the ambit of section 194H and since the assessee did not deducted 15 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 TAS, the assessee committed a default and invoked section 201(1).
42. The assessee took the issue before the CIT(A) and reiterated its submissions before him and submitted that 194H contemplated "income by way of commission" and not any payment. In the case of the assessee, the payment was made as a reimbursement of commission, wherein no income was generated to the payee. The CIT(A), held, "I have considered the above submissions of the appellant as well as the facts of the case. I agree with the appellant that no tax is required to be deducted in respect of reimbursement of commission which has been paid by Zee Turner Ltd to its dealers and distributors. The provisions of section 194H are quite clear and the words used therein are 'any income by way of commission'. Therefore, since the reimbursements are not in the nature of any income in the hands of Zee Turner Ltd, no tax was required to be deducted in respect of the said reimbursement of Rs. 3.72 crores. Furthermore, it is also seen that while paying the commission to its dealers and distributors, Zee Turner Ltd. has deducted tax at source on the said commission paid which was in turn reimbursed by the appellant. Accordingly no tax was required to be deducted again on the commission reimbursed to Zee Turner.
7.7 In view of the above, I do not agree with the stand adopted by the AO and the AO is directed not to consider the Appellant to be an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act as there is no short deduction by the Appellant. The demand of tax of Rs. 20,87,475/- under Section 201(1) and consequential levy of interest at Rs. 15,02,982/- under section 201(1A) is hereby deleted".
43. The CIT(A), thus deleted the tax charged on the assessee.
44. Against this order of the CIT(A), the department is in appeal before the ITAT.
45. Before us, the DR supported the order of the AO, whereas, the AR supported the order of the CIT(A).
46. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A). On the facts that payee, M/s Zee Turner Ltd. paid commission to its constituents, they deducted 16 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 tax where ever applicable. In the instant case, the assessee had only made good the payments made by Zee Turner Ltd., which it had paid on behalf of the assessee. Hence there was no profit element involved in those payments, being "reimbursements" made by the assessee to Zee Turner Limited. In the proceedings before the revenue authorities, the assessee was able to demonstrate the different characters of payments made by it. The payments, where Zee Turner Limited paid its taxes, the assessee was under no obligation and/or became defaulter u/s 201(1). On the given facts, we find ourselves benefitted by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages reported in 293 ITR 226, wherein it was held that where the deductee/recipient has already paid taxes on amount received from deductor, the department cannot recover the tax on the same amount, as that would result in double taxation.
47. We are also aware of the decision of the coordinate Bench at Kolkata in the case of Ramakrishna Vedenta Math vs ITO, reported in 55 SOT 417 (Kol), wherein it was held that the onus is on the revenue to demonstrate that the taxes have not been recovered from the person who had the primary liability to pay the tax in accordance with the income.
48. Since in the instant case, the assessee had provided complete details of expenses and taxes paid by the payee, the addition became untenable.
49. On these facts and seeking benefit of the cited case laws, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A), which we sustain and as a consequence reject the grounds taken by the department on the impugned issue.
50. Ground no. 10 & 11 are therefore rejected.
17Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
51. Grounds no. 12 & 13 pertain to short deduction of TAS.
52. According to the AO, the assessee had committed a breach by short deduction of TAS as per Tax Audit Report, whereas the CIT(A) noted that the details had been provided by way of the challans of payment of tax deducted at source, hence the provisions of section 201(1)/201(A) cannot be attracted. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the AO did not consider the details completely, therefore he concluded that the assessee was in default. In any case, the assessee submitted the details and proofs of payment of tax and interest.
53. On consideration of the details and proofs of payment, the CIT(A) deleted the demand as raised by the AO.
54. Against this order, the department is in appeal before the ITAT.
55. Before us, the DR relied on the order of the AO on the issue, whereas, the AR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
56. On hearing and going through the orders of the revenue authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which we sustain and as a consequence, the grounds of appeal on the impugned issue are rejected.
57. Grounds no. 12 & 13 are therefore, rejected.
58. Ground no. 14 is consequential to the above grounds, wherein we have deleted the demands as created by the AO. In such a circumstances, ground no. 14 become inconsequential, hence it is rejected.
59. Grounds no. 15 & 16 are general.
18Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 60 In the result, the appeal as filed by the department is dismissed.
ITA no. 3932/Mum/2013 : Asst. year 2007-08 :
61. The following grounds have been raised by the department:
"a) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of carriage fee /placement fee paid by the assessee to various cable operators/MSO/DTH service providers holding the service provided was work within the meaning of section 1940 and not technical service u/s 194J.
b) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cable operators /MSO/DTH service providers had not provided mere standard service of transmitting the signals of assessee's channels but through human intervention and application of mind provided specified technical service of placing assessee's channel on desired prime band and such service are technical service u/s 194J.
c) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was in fact author of all the programme purchased by it and was fully in command of making such programme and therefore the payments made by it for production of such programme was in the nature of Technical fee within the meaning of section 194J and therefore erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) determined on this account and holding the same within the meaning of provisions of section 194C.
d) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts brought on records by the Assessing officer that the acquisition of programme software involves transfer of rights of that programme to the assessee and such payments made by the assessee are clearly covered under the definition of Royalty within the meaning of royalty in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) to Section 9.
e) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce any agreement with event manager to justify that the payment was in the nature of work contract and also failed to appreciate that the onus was on the assessee to establish the nature of services were not in the nature of professional services.
f) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that that the event management service was in the nature of work contract u/s. 194C and the same was not professional service u/s 194J especially when the assessee did not bring 19 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 any evidence to justify the service was not in the nature of professional services within the meaning of section 194J.
g) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notification no. F No. 275/43/2008-IT(B) dated 21.08.2008 was clarificatory in nature and the event management fee was always in the nature of professional services u/s 194J.
h) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by holding the equipment hire charges u/s. 194C and failed to appreciate that the evidences available on records clearly show that the equipment hire charges were paid for services which were technical service within the meaning of section 194J.
i) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of equipment hire charges without appreciating the facts brought on records by the assessing officer.
j) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the commission paid to directors was salary considering day to day involvement of theses directors to carry out the functions of various committee of which they were members and the commission was rightly treated as salary.
k) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that relationship between the directors and the assessee was of employer and employee as evident from the nature of work done by these directors as brought out in the order by the Assessing Officer.
l) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction which was determined on the basis of information available in Tax Audit Report especially when the assessee did not submit any evidence of payment of the unpaid TDS as reported in Tax Audit Report.
m) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce the evidence of payment of unpaid TDS as per tax audit report before the assessing officer whereas the CIT(A) claimed that the assessee paid the unpaid TDS before the completion of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A).
n) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand of Rs.9,68,90,071/- without properly appreciating the factual & legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the A.O. in order u/s. 201(1) of the IT. Act, 1961.
2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of the hearing of the case or thereafter.
16. The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous be set aside and the A.O's order be restored".
20Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
62. We find that grounds 1(a) to (i) are similar and identical to grounds no. 1 to 9 in ITA No. 3931/Mum/2013, wherein we have rejected the grounds as raised by the department. Similarly we reject grounds no. 1(a) to 1(i) in this appeal as well.
63. Similarly grounds no. 1(l) and 1(m) are similar to grounds no. 12 & 13 in ITA No. 3931/Mum/2013, wherein we have rejected the grounds as raised by the department. Since the grounds are similar and identical, we reject the grounds in this appeal as well.
64. Grounds no. 1(j) & 1(1k) pertain to payment of commission to non-executive/independent directors. The facts are that in the year under consideration, the assessee paid commission of Rs. 55.17 lacs to its Non Executive Directors/Independent Directors, which was duly approved by the Board of Directors. The AO came to the conclusion that these directors were actually employees of the company and were paid salary, which was shown as commission to avoid withholding tax.
65. On the other hand, in appeal before the CIT(A) on this issue, it was held that these directors did not have any employer
- employee relationship and nor did they receive any pecuniary benefits. Payment of commission to them, itself, could not be categorised as salary.
66. Against this order, the department is in appeal before the ITAT.
67. Before us the AR submitted that these directors were never involved in the day to day activities of the assessee company, nor were they employed and drawing salary. These directors, according to the AR, provided services of/on specilised, which they honed. The AR submitted, as per synopsis that the amendment to import section 194J specified Managing 21 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 Director/Whole Time Director. Since these persons/directors were neither managing director nor whole time director, the provisions of section 194J could not be applied.
68. The DR relied on the order of the AO.
69. We have heard the arguments and have perused the orders of the revenue authorities and are of the view that the AO went on wrong track and did not consider the provisions/expressions used in the relevant section, i.e. 194J. Since the CIT(A) has applied the right law, we are inclined to sustain the order of the CIT(A), consequentially reject the ground as raised by the department.
70. Grounds no. 1(j) and (k) are therefore, rejected.
71. As a result, the appeal, as filed by the department is rejected.
ITA no. 3933/Mum/2013 : Asst. year 2008-09 :
72. The following grounds have been raised by the department:
"a) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of carriage fee /placement fee paid by the assessee to various cable operators/MSO/DTH service providers holding the service provided was work within the meaning of section 1940 and not technical service u/s 194J.
b) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cable operators /MSO/DTH service providers had not provided mere standard service of transmitting the signals of assessee's channels but through human intervention and application of mind provided specified technical service of placing assessee's channel on desired prime band and such service are technical service u/s 194J.
c) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was in fact author of all the programme purchased by it and was fully in command of making such programme and therefore the payments made by it for production of such 22 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 programme was in the nature of Technical fee within the meaning of section 194J and therefore erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) determined on this account and holding the same within the meaning of provisions of section 194C.
d) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts brought on records by the Assessing officer that the acquisition of programme software involves transfer of rights of that programme to the assessee and such payments made by the assessee are clearly covered under the definition of Royalty within the meaning of royalty in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) to Section 9.
e) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce any agreement with event manager to justify that the payment was in the nature of work contract and also failed to appreciate that the onus was on the assessee to establish the nature of services were not in the nature of professional services.
f) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that that the event management service was in the nature of work contract u/s. 194C and the same was not professional service u/s 194J especially when the assessee did not bring any evidence to justify the service was not in the nature of professional services within the meaning of section 194J.
g) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notification no. F No. 275/43/2008-IT(B) dated 21.08.2008 was clarificatory in nature and the event management fee was always in the nature of professional services u/s 194J.
h) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by holding the equipment hire charges u/s. 194C and failed to appreciate that the evidences available on records clearly show that the equipment hire charges were paid for services which were technical service within the meaning of section 194J.
i) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of equipment hire charges without appreciating the facts brought on records by the assessing officer.
j) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the commission paid to directors was salary considering day to day involvement of theses directors to carry out the functions of various committee of which they were members and the commission was rightly treated as salary.
k) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that relationship between the directors and the assessee was of employer and employee as evident from the nature of work done by these directors as brought out in the order by the Assessing Officer.
23Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013
l) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction which was determined on the basis of information available in Tax Audit Report especially when the assessee did not submit any evidence of payment of the unpaid TDS as reported in Tax Audit Report.
m) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce the evidence of payment of unpaid TDS as per tax audit report before the assessing officer whereas the CIT(A) claimed that the assessee paid the unpaid TDS before the completion of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A).
n) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand of Rs.24,59,12,548/- without properly appreciating the factual & legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the A.O. in order u/s. 201(1) of the IT. Act, 1961.
2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of the hearing of the case or thereafter.
3. The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous be set aside and the A.O's order be restored".
73. We find that grounds 1(a) to (n) are similar and identical to grounds no. 1 to 14 in ITA No. 3931/Mum/2013, wherein we have rejected the grounds as raised by the department. Similar view is taken in this appeal as well.
74. We, therefore, reject the grounds as raised by the department.
75. In the result, appeal as filed by the department is dismissed.
ITA no. 3934/Mum/2013 : Asst. year 2009-10 :
76. The following grounds have been raised by the department:
"a) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of carriage fee /placement fee paid by the assessee to various cable operators/MSO/DTH service providers holding the service provided was work within the meaning of section 1940 and not technical service u/s 194J.
b) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cable operators /MSO/DTH service providers had not provided mere 24 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 standard service of transmitting the signals of assessee's channels but through human intervention and application of mind provided specified technical service of placing assessee's channel on desired prime band and such service are technical service u/s 194J.
c) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was in fact author of all the programme purchased by it and was fully in command of making such programme and therefore the payments made by it for production of such programme was in the nature of Technical fee within the meaning of section 194J and therefore erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) determined on this account and holding the same within the meaning of provisions of section 194C.
d) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts brought on records by the Assessing officer that the acquisition of programme software involves transfer of rights of that programme to the assessee and such payments made by the assessee are clearly covered under the definition of Royalty within the meaning of royalty in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) to Section 9.
e) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce any agreement with event manager to justify that the payment was in the nature of work contract and also failed to appreciate that the onus was on the assessee to establish the nature of services were not in the nature of professional services.
f) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that that the event management service was in the nature of work contract u/s. 194C and the same was not professional service u/s 194J especially when the assessee did not bring any evidence to justify the service was not in the nature of professional services within the meaning of section 194J.
g) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notification no. F No. 275/43/2008-IT(B) dated 21.08.2008 was clarificatory in nature and the event management fee was always in the nature of professional services u/s 194J.
h) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by holding the equipment hire charges u/s. 194C and failed to appreciate that the evidences available on records clearly show that the equipment hire charges were paid for services which were technical service within the meaning of section 194J.
i) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of equipment hire charges without appreciating the facts brought on records by the assessing officer.
j) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the commission paid to directors was salary considering day to day 25 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 involvement of theses directors to carry out the functions of various committee of which they were members and the commission was rightly treated as salary.
k) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that relationship between the directors and the assessee was of employer and employee as evident from the nature of work done by these directors as brought out in the order by the Assessing Officer.
l) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand of Rs. 25,50,21,804/- without properly appreciating the factual & legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the AO in order u/s 201(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of the hearing of the case or thereafter.
3. The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous be set aside and the A.O's order be restored".
77. We find that grounds 1(a) to (e) are similar and identical to grounds no. 1 to 12 in ITA No. 3931/Mum/2013, wherein we have rejected the grounds. Since the grounds as raised by the department are similar in nature and issue, we reject the grounds in this appeal as well.
78. Grounds no. 1(a) to 1(e) are, therefore, rejected.
79. We, therefore, reject the grounds as raised by the department.
80. In the result, the appeal as filed by the department is dismissed.
ITA no. 3935/Mum/2013 : Asst. year 2010-11 :
81. The following grounds have been raised by the department:
"a) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of carriage fee /placement fee paid by the assessee to various cable operators/MSO/DTH service providers holding the service provided was work within the meaning of section 1940 and not technical service u/s 194J.
b) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cable operators 26 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 /MSO/DTH service providers had not provided mere standard service of transmitting the signals of assessee's channels but through human intervention and application of mind provided specified technical service of placing assessee's channel on desired prime band and such service are technical service u/s 194J.
c) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was in fact author of all the programme purchased by it and was fully in command of making such programme and therefore the payments made by it for production of such programme was in the nature of Technical fee within the meaning of section 194J and therefore erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) determined on this account and holding the same within the meaning of provisions of section 194C.
d) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts brought on records by the Assessing officer that the acquisition of programme software involves transfer of rights of that programme to the assessee and such payments made by the assessee are clearly covered under the definition of Royalty within the meaning of royalty in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) to Section 9.
e) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding the equipment hire charges u/s 194C and failed to appreciate that the evidences available on records clearly show that the equipment hire charges were paid for services which were technical service within the meaning of section 194J.
f) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of equipment hire charges without appreciating the fact brought on records by the assessing officer.
g) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the commission paid to directors was salary considering day to day involvement of theses directors to carry out the functions of various committee of which they were members and the commission was rightly treated as salary.
h) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that relationship between the directors and the assessee was of employer and employee as evident from the nature of work done by these directors as brought out in the order by the Assessing Officer.
i) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction which was determined on the basis of information available in Tax Audit Report especially when the assessee did not submit any evidence of payment of the unpaid TDS as reported in Tax Audit Report.
j) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce the evidence of payment of unpaid TDS as per tax audit report before the assessing officer whereas the CIT(A) claimed that the assessee paid the unpaid TDS 27 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 before the completion of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A).
k) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand of Rs.25,20,73,318/- without properly appreciating the factual & legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the A.O. in order u/s. 201(1) of the IT. Act, 1961.
2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of the hearing of the case or thereafter.
3. The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous be set aside and the A.O's order be restored".
82. Similar to grounds no. 1 to 11 in ITA no. 3931/Mum/2013.
83. We find that grounds 1(a) to (k) are similar and identical to grounds no. 1 to 12 in ITA No. 3931/Mum/2013, wherein we have rejected the grounds. Since the grounds as raised by the department are similar in nature and issue, we reject the grounds in this appeal as well.
84. Grounds no. 1(a) to 1(k) are, therefore, rejected and Grounds 2 & 3 are general.
85. In the result, appeal as filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
Sum-up:
All the five appeals i.e. ITAs 3931 to 3935 of 2013 filed by the department stand dismissed.
Order pronounced today, i.e. 20.02.2015 (आर.
आर. सी.
सी. शमा ) (िववेक वमा ) Sd/- Sd/-
(R C SHARMA) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 20th February, 2015 28 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
ITA 3931 to 3935/Mum/2013 ूित/Copy to:-
1) अपीलाथ /The Appellant.
2) ू यथ /The Respondent.
3) The CIT(A) -14, Mumbai.
4) The CIT-(TDS), Mumbai.
5) ,वभागीय ूितिनिध "जी", आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुब ं ई The D.R. "G" Bench, Mumbai.
6) गाड1 फाईल Copy to Guard File.
आदे शानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / / उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबं ई Dy./Asstt. Registrar I.T.A.T., Mumbai *च हान व.िन.स *Chavan, Sr.PS