2018 (6) TMI 1518 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction in respect of expenditure of acquisition of distribution rights of feature film - Deduction of the amounts in connection with the acquisition of satellite distribution rights on three Malayalam films denied - Held that - Rule 9B(5) starts with a non-obstante clause laid down that deduction under Rule 9B shall not be allowed unless the distributor credits in the books of accounts, the amounts realised by the distributor in case where the distributor himself has exhibited the film on commercial basis. The assessee was therefore required to credit the amount realised by him by exhibiting the film in the profit and loss account. Hence the deduction is permissible under Rule 9B only if the film has been commercially exploited and an income received. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9B only permits carrying forward of the cost of acquisition to the next year for the purpose of claiming deduction, which can be claimed only if there is income generated by the film and the same is credited to the books of accounts as provided in the overriding sub-rule at Rule 9B(5). There can be no deduction permissible on the cost of acquisition without generation of income credited in the books of account. The subject films were never commercially exploited and generated absolutely no income. It is an admitted case that the feature films were never exhibited and there was no amount credited in the profit and loss account as amount received on exhibition of films. The finding of the Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal is therefore, to be upheld and we find no reason to interfere and the claim of the assessee fails.- Decided in favour of the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 9B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 regarding deduction for acquisition of distribution rights of feature films.
2. Application of Rule 9B(5) overriding the provisions of Rule 9B(4) in cases of commercial exploitation of films.
3. Claiming deduction based on the provisions of Rule 9B(4) and Rule 9B(5) in the absence of commercial exploitation of films.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of Rule 9B(4):
The case involved the appellant challenging the Tribunal's decision regarding the benefit under Rule 9B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The appellant claimed deduction for expenditure on acquisition of distribution rights of feature films for the assessment year 2005-06. The primary contention was that as per Rule 9B(4), if there was no commercial exhibition or sale of rights in the year of acquisition or the following year, the deduction should be allowed in the subsequent year. The appellant argued that the non-obstante clause in Rule 9B(5) did not disqualify the deduction under Rule 9B(4. However, the Revenue contended that the non-obstante clause in Rule 9B(5) supersedes all contrary provisions.

Issue 2 - Application of Rule 9B(5):
The High Court analyzed Rule 9B(5) which mandates that deduction under Rule 9B shall not be allowed unless the distributor credits the amounts realized from commercial exhibition in the books of accounts. The Court emphasized that deduction under Rule 9B is permissible only if the film has been commercially exploited and income has been received. The Court referred to a previous judgment to support the interpretation that deduction is admissible only concerning receipts credited in the profit and loss account. In this case, as the feature films were never commercially exploited and generated no income, the Court upheld the findings of the lower authorities.

Issue 3 - Claiming deduction without commercial exploitation:
The appellant argued that the deduction for acquisition costs should be carried forward to the next year as per Rule 9B(4) since the films were not commercially exploited. However, the Court held that the absence of commercial exploitation and income generation precluded the deduction under Rule 9B. The Court noted that the films were never exhibited, and no amount was credited in the profit and loss account from film exhibition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities and ruling in favor of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities and ruling in favor of the Revenue based on the interpretation and application of Rule 9B(4) and Rule 9B(5) regarding the deduction for acquisition of distribution rights of feature films in the absence of commercial exploitation.