9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1083 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of Advertisement expenses - Held that - Since the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the assessee s own case 2013 (11) TMI 319 - ITAT MUMBAI has already taken the view on this issue in favour of the assessee concluding there is no dispute about the date of release of the film in question on 29.4.2005. We further note that the Censor Board of Films issued the certification of the film on 21.4.2005 therefore, the film was released for exhibition on commercial basis at the beginning of the previous year and as per Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rule the entire cost of production is allowable deduction - consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench we hold that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of advertisement expenses. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of advertisement expenses. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on ad-hoc basis from out of various expenses - disallowance for want of technical documents - Held that - We notice that the assessing officer has only made some bald observations that some of the items are under self made vouchers/cash payments/cash memos/bills from unregistered dealers without pointing out any specific instances. Hence, we are of the view that the assessing officer did not make any strong case in support of disallowance made by him. We have earlier noticed that the co-ordinate bench in the assessee s own case as well in the case of Shri Karan Yash Johar (supra) has taken the view that the technical documents are not really required to ascertain the genuineness of the expenses and further held that the maintenance of the same was not feasible for valid reasons. Accordingly, in the case of Shri Karan Yash Johar (2015 (5) TMI 539 - ITAT MUMBAI), the Tribunal has taken the view the disallowances were not called merely for want of technical documents. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses. 2. Disallowance on Ad-hoc Basis from Various Expenses. Detailed Analysis: Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses: The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of advertisement expenses amounting to Rs. 4,44,49,789/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim on the grounds that the expenses were incurred after the issuance of a certificate by the Censor Board, invoking Rule 9A and 9B of the Income Tax Rules. The AO's interpretation was that expenses incurred post-certification by the Censor Board are not deductible. The Tribunal, however, referred to its previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07, where it was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Prasad Productions Pvt Ltd (179 ITR 147) and the Mumbai bench's decision in Mukta Arts Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (292 ITR (AT) 16). The Tribunal reiterated that advertisement and publicity expenses incurred post-certification are not part of the "cost of production" and are allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of advertisement expenses, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the disallowance. Disallowance on Ad-hoc Basis from Various Expenses: The second issue pertains to the ad-hoc disallowance of 25% of expenses under several heads, including payments to junior artistes, costumes, make-up, dubbing, dancers, and setting expenses. The AO justified the disallowance on the grounds of the assessee's failure to produce primary evidence. The Tribunal referred to its decision for AY 2006-07, where it restricted such disallowances to 5% for similar expenses. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained all vouchers with proper details and that the AO did not consider the expenses as bogus. The Tribunal also referenced a recent decision in the case of Shri Karan Yash Johar, where it was held that no disallowance was called for due to the non-production of technical documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary documents for expenses are vouchers, bills, and invoices, and not the technical documents related to film production planning. It held that the AO was not justified in making ad-hoc disallowances merely for the non-furnishing of technical details, especially when the primary documents were not doubted. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the ad-hoc disallowances, setting aside the order of the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the deletion of both the disallowance of advertisement expenses and the ad-hoc disallowances from various expenses. The judgment underscores the distinction between primary and secondary documents in substantiating expenses and reaffirms that expenses not forming part of the "cost of production" are allowable under Section 37.
|
