News Update

Ten more APA's including 7 Roll-back singedAdmission to a museum exempted - CBEC issues section 11C notification for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015Exporters who have been accorded AEO exempted from the requirements of drawal of samples for the purpose of grant of drawbackGovt hikes tariff value of gold and silver but reduces same for edible oilsIndia, ADB ink USD 375 mn loans pact for Vizag-Chennai industrial corridorRBI sets up 11-member panel to reassess cyber threatsDeveloping nations in Asia & Pacific required to invest USD 26 trillion in infra sector by 2030: ADBOECD hails India for GST reform; urges for income and property tax reformStuntmen getting 'stunned and stunted' by threat of Service TaxTFA comes into force; to reduce trade costs by 14.3%Commerce Minister calls for strong India-CLMV vertical within ASEANST - As there is no representational right conferred by AAI on petitioners, Operations, Management and Development Agreements cannot constitute franchise: HCI-T - Merely because assessee had approached Settlement commission, it would not render his every act as dubious, says HCCX - Absent issue of SCN against sealed machines & failure to pass order extending period of seizure upon lapse of statutory period of six months, continuation of seizure is illegal: HCGovt to release ethanol policy to reduce crude import bill by Rs one lakh croreTrump likely to sign new immigration order on WednesdaySteel Minister sets up panel for pooling and sharing of resources among PSUsCCEA approves 31 contract areas under Discovered Small Field Policy, 2015Applications invited for Director / DS level posts in CBDTEconomic Survey - A Neo-classic (See 'The Insight' on 'Taxongo')Treading GST Path - XIX - ITC on supporting structuresImport of goods on FOB basis vs CIF basis: Service tax on ocean freightNew Metro Policy - TOD to be incentivisedI-T - Upfront premium on Zero Coupon Non-Convertible Debentures is allowable deduction: ITATCX - Ownership is not the criteria for allowing credit on capital goods: CESTATST - Refund claim of appellant being not in dispute before any higher judicial authority, Sec 11B Clause (B)(ec) will not get attracted - claim time-barred: CESTATPromotion of Digital payments - Prizes worth Rs 150 Crore won by customers and traders so far: PMBanking likely to be disrupted on Tuesday as PSBs' Unions call for strikeOECD Secretary General Angel Gurria to release Economic Survey of India on Tuesday in New DelhiIRS Association writes to PM; calls for Centralised Registration for telecom, banks & insuranceGovt mulling over proposal to cap giveaways by pharma companies to Rs 1000/-Delhi Cabinet approves 36% hike in min wagesDeputation period may be extended but allowance to be capped at five years 
 
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