2015 (3) TMI 272 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure incurred for production of T. V. films and commercials - revenue v/s capital expenditure - Held that - Issue arising in the present case is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. 2009 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein held since expenditure was in respect of promoting ongoing products of the assessee, they are held as by way of revenue expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding revenue expenditure for production of T.V. films and commercials.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of expenditure incurred for production of T.V. films and commercials as revenue in nature. The primary issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure as revenue without considering the films as assets owned by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a previous decision by the Court in a similar case. The Court noted that previous appeals by the Revenue on the same issue had been consistently dismissed. Despite the issue being settled by previous decisions, the Revenue chose to persist with the appeal without providing any valid reasons for doing so.

The Court emphasized that since the issue had already been conclusively settled by previous judgments, no substantial question of law arose in the current appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court expressed concern over the Revenue's casual approach in filing appeals without proper justification or examination of settled legal positions. The Court warned that such arbitrary filing of appeals without due application of mind not only wastes public money but also causes unnecessary expenditure and anxiety to the assessee. Consequently, the Court contemplated imposing costs on the Revenue to deter such behavior in the future.

In light of the Revenue's repeated filing of appeals on settled issues, the Court issued directions for a review of all pending appeals and emphasized the need for a thorough examination before filing new appeals. The Court instructed the Revenue to withdraw appeals where issues had already been settled by the Court's decisions, and to provide valid justifications if deciding to pursue an appeal. Failure to comply with these directions would result in heavy or exemplary costs imposed on the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court expected the Revenue to act in accordance with these observations and directions to ensure a more judicious approach to filing and pursuing appeals in the future.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs and directed the communication of the order to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes for necessary action.