9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer and this was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee, who is a renowned film star, had in the relevant previous year received the following amounts for his commitment to do films : M/s. Photon factory Rs. 20,00,000. M/s. Studio Green Rs. 35,00,000. It was explained that such amounts were received as advance for acting in films and in later years adjusted against the professional fees. However, the Assessing Officer noting that the assessee was following the cash system, considered such amount as income of the impugned assessment year. Aggrieved by this, the assessee moved the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who relying on his orders in the assessee's own case for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assing his contention that similar advances could not be treated as income. Per contra the learned Departmental representative submitted that the decision in the assessee's own case for the earlier years, relied on by the learned authorised representative, was distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, according to him, decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of A. Ramki v. Deputy CIT (I. T. A. No. 1219/Mds/02 dated July 28, 2007) and that of Ms. D. Meena v. Deputy CIT (I. T. A. No. 1624/1625/ Mds/2000 dated July 19, 2005) clearly justified the treatment given by the Assessing Officer. We have perused the orders of the authorities below and heard the rival contentions. There is no dispute that the learned Commissioner of Incometax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year could have been different from that of the earlier years, which was dealt with by the Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 596/597/Mds/09, as aforesaid, we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment year based on his own decision for the earlier years, which was later reversed by the Tribunal. As for the reliance placed by learned counsel for the Revenue on the decisions of A. Ramki and D. Meena the former case was decided relying on the latter decision. If we advert to the decision of D. Meena's case, there the assessee who was also a cine artist, had received advance on the basis of a contract for acting in a film. In other words, there was a subsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4,89,345. Such treatment was confirmed by the in the assessee's appeal. Now before us, the learned authorised representative submits that the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Lakshmi Communication did not fall within the purview of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to him, the amounts paid were not in the nature of interest, commission, brokerage, fees for professional service or even for technical services. Hence, it was urged that there was no obligation for the assessee to deduct tax at source. In any case, it was submitted that the assessee had indeed remitted the amount on July 28, 2006 and by virtue of the amendment made to the said section by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2005 the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
