आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:7008)याय पीठ मबुं ई म।(cid:7286)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM &

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.5623/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Assessee by : Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2026 O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The aforesaid appeal is filed by the Revenue, against the order of ADDL/

JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, [for short “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.07.2025 for the AY 2017-18, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 21.03.2023, passed by OSD, TDS Circle 2(3), Mumbai.

2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in the present appeal are extracted, as under:

“1. "Whether, the AddI/JCIT(A) was justified in law and on facts, in deleting the addition made u/s 194H, without appreciating the facts that the relationship between the assessee company and its distributors was in the nature of principle- agent relationship and hence the payment made by the company to its distributors in the form of discount falls within the meaning of section 194H of the Income Tax Act, as he was providing the services offered by the DTH service provider to the consumer and these are serviced, guaranteed and warranted by the DTH provider only even after sale of said services."

2. "Whether, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by AO by holding that the payments made to Installation Service Providers (ISP) fall within a purview of section 194C & not under the Provision of section 194) of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the factual 2 perspective which clearly shows that the payment made by the assessee deductor is on account of specialized technical service as installation of DTH apparatus necessarily involves technical expertise, the use of specialized equipment, signal verification, system configuration and explanation, as well as post-installation support."

3. "Whether, on facts and the circumstances, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was justified in not confirming the order of the AO treating the assessee as an 'assessee-in- default' u/s 201(1) for short deduction of TDs in respect of payments made towards 3 document management fees' without appreciating the fact that the nature of services received by the assessee requires certain parameters of technical/managerial skill of highly qualified specialized competency and falls within the purview of Section 194J and not u/s. 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961?"

4. Whether, the Ld. AddI./JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the interest u/s. 201(1A) on the issue of short deduction of TDS on discounts on sale of Tata Sky Starter Kits & Recharge Coupons, issue of TDS on payments made for installation service provider and on the issue of document management fee as these short deductions have been deleted by him without appreciating that the same are also the subject matter of further appeal, as mentioned above."

5. Whether, the Learned CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) on year-end provisions of expenses amounting to Rs. 53,04,600/-, without appreciating the fact that WHARE the concerned parties were identifiable, the obligation to deduet TDS arose, and consequently, the levy of interest under Section 201 (1A) was fully justified and ought to have been upheld

6. Whether, the Learned CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) on year-end provisions of expenses, without appreciating the fact 6 that the Assessing Officer has correctly noted that the assessee company, having itself made a suo motu disallowance