Competent Films Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
ITA No. 3397/Del./2008
A.Y. : 2005-2006. Dated : 9-2-2009
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 40(a)(ia) and S. 194C — Whether
an agreement entered into by the assessee with distributors whereby revenue
was shared was a works contract and therefore liable to TDS u/s.194C — Held,
No.
Facts :
The assessee company was engaged in the business of running
of cinema hall, canteen and food courts. It had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with M/s. Mukta Movies Distributors (Distributors) which
inter alia provided that — the assessee was to be a booking agent for
the cinema hall for three years; the assessee had exclusive rights to book
Hindi films for the said cinema and to run a certain number of shows daily as
per the local laws; the MOU also fixed the rate of admission to the cinema
hall; stated revenue at full capacity and the amount due to the assessee on a
weekly basis subject to the exceptions provided in the MOU.
The distributor raised a bill on the assessee under which
the daily collections were shown and after reducing the payment to be made to
the assessee for the cinema hall hired, a bill was raised for the balance by
the Distributor which bills were paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer
(AO) held that the MOU was in the nature of a works contract and held the
assessee liable to deduct tax at source u/s.194C. Since the assessee had not
deducted tax on payments made to distributor pursuant to the said MOU, the AO
disallowed a sum of Rs.72,43,965 by invoking provisions of S. 40(a)(ia).
The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee
preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal upon a close reading of the agreement held it
to be a profit sharing agreement. It further held that the agreement was not
for services rendered but for sharing the profits with the assessee. Following
the ratio of the decisions of Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in Sunsel
Drive-in-Cinema (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, (2006) 5 SOT 64 (Ahd.) and Mumbai Bench
of ITAT in ITO v. Shrinagar Cinemas (P.) Ltd., (2008) 20 SOT 480 (Mum.)
it held that there was no works contract and, therefore, the assessee was not
liable to deduct any tax u/s.194C of the Act. The Tribunal found that the
distributor has only given the right to exhibit the films and the assessee had
only rendered the services of exhibiting the films and therefore the question
of deduction of tax by the assessee did not arise. The claim of the assessee
was allowed.
