9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. In this Appeal, the Revenue has raised the following three questions before us : "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee stating that the expenses was incurred for production of animation film and is related to business activity, hence it is revenue expenses. (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the commission expenses claim of the assessee of Rs.1,40,000/- stating that commission has been allowed in earlier also, when the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has to prove the commission payment has derived certain benefit. (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowed the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,61,246=00. After going through the materials on record, we find that in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year under the appeal, the assessee had not sold the project which was shown in the earlier year as work in process. We find that it is rightly pointed out by the Tribunal below that there is no evidence on record that any revenue was generated from the said project and there was any chance of recovery. In the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year under the appeal, the assessee - Company had written off the said amount by debiting Profit and Loss account as animation film, which was made in the year 2001, became out of date. Since it had no market value, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer had observed that some projects of the assessee were spread over 3 to 4 years and so the expenses were required to be considered for incomplete project on the basis of men-hours utilized, and in the absence of specific details, exact computation of work in WIP cannot be made and, accordingly, he added Rs.5 lakh as attributable to work in process of such incomplete project. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, was of the view that the addition of Rs.5 lakh made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of presumption and guessing without considering the sales bills made by the assessee in the next year could not be supported. It was pointed out that the total sales of five parties in addition to the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
