9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 460 - HC - Income TaxCost of the abandoned film written off - revenue v/s capital expenditure - Tribunal held as revenue expenditure - Held that - Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Rajesh Khanna, (2011 (9) TMI 979 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and CIT Vs. Dream Merchant Enterprises, (2011 (9) TMI 980 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). In the circumstances, we find that no substantial questions of law arise for our consideration. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 7.9.2012 for Assessment Year 2005-06 - Substantial question of law on revenue expenditure for abandoned film cost. The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 7.9.2012 related to Assessment Year 2005-06. The primary issue raised by the Revenue was whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the cost of the abandoned film written off, totaling Rs. 1,07,46,228, as a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal had based its decision on previous judgments of the High Court in cases like CIT Vs. Rajesh Khanna and CIT Vs. Dream Merchant Enterprises. The Court noted that since the Tribunal had followed established precedents, no substantial questions of law arose for their consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. In this case before the Bombay High Court, the primary issue revolved around the treatment of the cost of an abandoned film as a revenue expenditure for Assessment Year 2005-06. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the written-off amount of Rs. 1,07,46,228 as a revenue expenditure. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles established in previous judgments of the Court, specifically referring to cases like CIT Vs. Rajesh Khanna and CIT Vs. Dream Merchant Enterprises. Since the Tribunal's decision was in line with these precedents, the Court determined that no substantial questions of law were present for their consideration. As a result, the appeal was dismissed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
