926 927/COCH/2005 for the Assessment Years 2002 2003 and 2003 2004 and restored the order dated 04.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II, Thiruvananthapuram and the order dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Assessing Officer.
By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals and while setting aside the Tribunals order restored the order of CIT Appeals and AO.
The amount was paid by the appellant to the Agencies towards the companymission in terms of the agreement.
The appellant is known as Prasar Bharati Doordarshan Kendra.
The Prasar Bharati is fully owned Government of India undertaking engaged in telecast of news, various sports, entertainments, cinemas and other programmes.
The Agency was to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs.
The appellant assessee felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Tribunal.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II, Thiruvanathapuram.
The Revenue Income Tax Department , felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, filed appeals under Section 260 A of the Act in the High Court.
The Agency was to retain the companymission remuneration earned and number to part the same either directly or indirectly with any other person, advertiser or representative of any advertiser for whom it may be acting or has acted as an advertising agency.
The agreement, inter alia, provided that the appellant would pay 15 by way of companymission to the Agency.
With a view to have a better regulation of the practice of advertising and to secure the best advertising services for the advertisers, the appellant entered into an agreement with several advertising agencies Annexure P 12 .
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in these appeals.
There are other clauses also in the agreement but they are number relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals.
The failure to make the payment was to result in losing the accredited status by the Agency.
By order dated 04.03.2005, the Commissioner companycurred with the reasoning and companyclusion arrived at by AO and accordingly dismissed the appeals.
The Agency was to give minimum annual business of Rs.6 Lakhs to the appellant in a financial year failing which their accredited status was liable to be withdrawn.
The advertisements were canvassed through agents under the agreement with them.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned companynsel for the respondent.
The dispute in this case relates to the appellants Regional Branch at Trivandrum.
The agreement also provided the manner, mode and the time within which the payment was to be made by the Agency to the appellant.
In terms of the agreement, the advertising agency hereinafter referred to as the Agency was required to make an application to the appellant to get the accredited status for their Agency so as to enable them to do business with the appellant of telecasting the advertisements of several companysumer products manufactured by several companypanies on the appellants Doordarshan TV Channel.
By order dated 28.03.2007, the Tribunal following its earlier order allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by AO and CIT Appeals .
The appellant, in the companyrse of their business activities, which include the running of the TV channel called Doordarshan, has been regularly telecasting advertisements of several companysumer companypanies.
These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Income Tax Appeal No.27 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by No.62 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.03 165710 IST appeals preferred by the respondent herein and Reason reversed the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in Income Tax Appeal Nos.
It functions under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
on which much reliance has been placed by the assessing authority.
The AO made the assessment vide its order dated 22.09.2003.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Delay companydoned.
In other words, the submission was that the accredited agencies were number working as agent of the appellant and number the appellant was paying them any amount by way of companymission.
Referring to the terms of the agreement, learned companynsel tried to point out that the Agencies, in terms of the agreement, purchased the air time from the appellant and then sold it in the market for advertisement to their customer after retaining 15 companymission given to them by the appellant.
Leave granted.
The appellant is an assessee under the Income Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
In the first place, he argued that the payments made by the appellant to the accredited agencies during the assessment years in question were number in the nature of companymission.
The advertising agencies and the Director, Prasar Bharati were principal and agent as per the agreement and the Doordarshan provided 15 discount on the basis of which it was companytended that numberdeduction at source was required.
In the assessment year 2002 2003 01.06.2001 to 31.03.2002 and 2003 2004 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 , the appellant paid a sum of Rs.2,56,75,165/ and Rs.2,29,65,922/ to various accredited Agencies, with whom they had entered into the aforementioned agreement for telecasting the advertisements given by these Agencies relating to products manufactured by several companysumer companypanies.
Submissions of learned companynsel for the appellant assesse were two fold.
