Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 vs T V Vision Ltd. on 3 December, 2025

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

     2025:BHC-OS:23533-DB


                                                                                       17.itxa.23.2019.doc



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                                         INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.23 OF 2019

                      Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-16, Mumbai                    .. Petitioner

                              Versus

                      T. V. Vision Ltd                                                   .. Respondent
UTKARSH
KAKASAHEB                  Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
BHALERAO
Digitally signed by
UTKARSH KAKASAHEB
BHALERAO
                           Mr. Ansh Agal i/b Jain Law Partners LLP, Advocate for
Date: 2025.12.05
15:17:22 +0530             Respondent.

                                               CORAM           : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                                 AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

                                               DATE            : DECEMBER 03, 2025

                      P. C.

1. The above Appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging

the order dated 28th February 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal (for short "the ITAT"). By the impugned order, the Revenue's

appeal was dismissed. The A.Y. in question is 2012-13.

2. According to the Revenue, the impugned order gives rise to

the following questions of law:-

DECEMBER 03, 2025 Utkarsh

17.itxa.23.2019.doc

(i) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in directing to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) rws 194J in respect of 'Carriage Fees/Channel Placement fees' and failing to appreciate that the payments made for use/right to use of 'process' are 'royalty' as per Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) hence such payments are covered u/s. 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(ii) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in directing to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) rws 194J of 'Carriage Fees/Channel Placement fees', whereas the jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai 'L' Bench, in its order dated 28.03.2014 in the case of ADIT-(IT)-2(2), Mumbai Vs Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd has confirmed that the payments made for use/right to use of 'process' are 'royalty' in terms of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(iii) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in directing to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and thereby holding that the short deduction of tax will not result into disallowance u/s. 40(a) (ia) of the Act, without appreciating that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its judgment dated 20.07.2015 in the case of CIT-1, Kochi Vs PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 69 (Kerala) has clearly laid down that the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) would be made even in the cases of short deduction of tax.

(iv) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in directing to delete the

DECEMBER 03, 2025 Utkarsh

17.itxa.23.2019.doc

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that Section 40(a)(ia) is not a charging Section but is a machinery Section and thus the expression "tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B" occurring in the said Section has to be understood as tax deductible at source under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B and hence, tax deductible under wrong section of Chapter XVII-B would result into invoking of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act?

3. As can be seen from the aforesaid questions, it is the case of

the Revenue that the Tribunal erred in directing to delete the

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194J in respect

of "Carriage Fees/Channel Placement Fees" without appreciating that

TDS for payment made for these fees were in the nature of royalty and

hence TDS ought to have been deducted under Section 194J instead of

194C.

4. As far as this issue is concerned, and which is on the merits

of the matter, we find that the same is squarely covered by a decision of

this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-2,

Mumbai V/S UTV Entertainment Television Ltd [(2017) 88

taxmann.com 214 (Bombay)]; [(2017) 399 ITR 443

(Bombay)]. In this decision, this Court has clearly taken a view that

DECEMBER 03, 2025 Utkarsh

17.itxa.23.2019.doc

payments made for "Carriage Fees/Channel Placement Fees", TDS has

to be deducted under Section 194C and not under Section 194J. The

relevant portion of this decision reads thus:-

"14. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding of fact on the perusal of sample copies of the agreements. The agreements are entered into with the respondent by the cable operators for placement of channels on agreed frequencies on which the respondent wishes to place a particular channel. The placement fee is the consideration for providing choice of the desired placement of the channels. That is how, channel placement charges are paid to the cable operators under the agreement. Under the agreement, the cable operators agree for placing a particular channel on agreed frequency band. As stated earlier, the respondent has deducted tax at the rate of 2% at source by invoking Section 194C of the Income Tax Act while making payment towards placement fees to the cable operators/MSOs. If Section 194J is to be applied, the deduction would be of 10%. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also gone through the method followed by the cable operators/MSOs. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also gone into the submission of the Revenue that, in fact, Section 194J would apply. In substance, the argument is that placement charges are basically for rendering technical service. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of material on record that the placement charges are consideration for placing the channels on agreed frequency bands. It was found that, as a matter of fact, by agreeing to place the channel on any preferred band, the cable operator does not render any technical service to the distributor/TV channel. Reference is made to the standard fee paid for basic broadcasting of a channel at any frequency. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered clause (iv) of the explanation to Section 194C which incorporates inclusive definition of "work". Clause (iv) includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting and telecasting. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly found that if the contract is executed for broadcasting and telecasting the channels of the respondent, the same would be covered by Section 194C as it falls in clause (iv) of the definition of "work". Therefore, when placement charges are paid by the respondent to the cable operators/MSOs for placing the signals on a preferred band, it is a part of work of broadcasting and telecasting covered by sub-clause (b) of clause (iv) of the

DECEMBER 03, 2025 Utkarsh

17.itxa.23.2019.doc

explanation to Section 194C. As a matter of fact, it was found by the Commissioner (Appeals) that whether the payment is towards a standard fee or placement fee, the activities involved on the part of the cable operators/MSOs are the same. When placement fee is received, a channel is placed on a particular prime band. It was found that by an agreement to place the channel on a prime band by accepting placement fee, the cable operator/MSO does not render any technical service. As far as Appellate Tribunal is concerned, again the definition of work in clause (iv) of the explanation to Section 194C was looked into. We must note here that a grievance was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there are no detailed findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded detailed findings on the basis of material on record and by referring to the findings, the Appellate Tribunal has expressed general agreement with the findings recorded by the first Appellate Authority. While affirming the judgment of the first Appellate Authority, it is open for the Appellate Tribunal to express such general agreement."

5. This decision in UTV Entertainment Television Ltd (supra)

has thereafter been followed in the case of Commissioner of Income

Tax (TDS)-2 V/S Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. [(2019)

105 taxmann.com 313 (Bombay)], and Commissioner of

Income Tax-TDS-2, Mumbai V/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. [Income

Tax Appeal No.1420 of 2016 with Income Tax Appeal No.1422

of 2016 decided on 11th January 2019].

6. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find that

question (i) as projected by the Revenue raises any substantial question

of law requiring an answer by this Court.

DECEMBER 03, 2025 Utkarsh

17.itxa.23.2019.doc