9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CIT(A) set aside – the matter s remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of prior period expenses – Held that:- Inasmuch as if an amount of Rs.2,11,34,759 out of total amount of Rs.2,38,85,000 was already offered to tax in the earlier years, the prior period adjustment made in that behalf by the assessee, on account of the concerned parties declining to make the payments due to discrepancies in the billing, the same should be allowed as deduction as bad debts – the order of the CIT(A) set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance made – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Applicability of Rate of depreciation to accessories of computer – Assessee claimed it to be 60% but revenue restricted at 15% - Held that:- Following Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 16(2), Hyderabad Versus Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. [2012 (10) TMI 472 - ITAT HYDERABAD] – the order of the CIT(A) upheld in accepting the claim of the assessee for depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals at 60% - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.1535,1552/Hyd/10 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2013 - Chandra Poojari and Asha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als etc. and the assessee is not owning the rights over their programmes except telecasting their programmes in its TV channels. The assessee also further submitted that the revenue paid to M/s. Usha Kiron Television, M/s. Usha Kiran Movies and other parties out of advertisement revenue from the time slots in telecasting the programmes is not towards cost of programmes, serials, etc. In this connection, assessee further submitted that it had credited the gross revenue generated during the said programmes and debited he amount paid to the said parties to Profit Loss Account under the head Cost of TV programmes for accounting purposes. In fact, it would have been enough if the assessee had credited its share of revenue to its Profit and Loss Account instead of passing entries as stated above. In this view of the mater, it was submitted that the provisions of S.194C are not attracted to the transactions between the assessee and M/s.Usha Kiron Television M/s. Usha kiron Movies and others for the reasons that these parties did not carry out any work for the assessee, within the meaning of S.194C of the Act. He further relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmes for such broadcasting or telecasting. In view of the same, we hold that the nature of payments fall within the purview of section 194C. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(A), insofar it related to merits of the case as to the applicability of TDS provisions to the payments in question is concerned. 8. It is further pleaded that the issue relating to applicability of provisions of S.40(a)(ia) is covered by the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal (Visakhapatnam Bench) in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transports (supra), since. The Tribunal, in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2006-07, following the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports (supra), has accepted the claim of the assessee, and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. However, as has been brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative, the Hon ble High Court is now seized of the matter, having granted interim stay against the said decision of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the year under appeal as prior period adjustment, the same should be allowed as deduction as bad debt, since such amounts were considered as income in earlier years. 12. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, opposing the above contentions of the assessee on this issue, supported the order of the CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Though in principle, we are agreement with the disallowance made by the Revenue authorities, we find merit in the alternative contention of the assessee. Inasmuch as if an amount of Rs.2,11,34,759 out of total amount of Rs.2,38,85,000 was already offered to tax in the earlier years, the prior period adjustment made in that behalf by the assessee, on account of the concerned parties declining to make the payments due to discrepancies in the billing, the same should be allowed as deduction as bad debts. We therefore, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer accordingly to restrict the disallowance made. Assessee s grounds on this issue are partly allowed. 14. In ground No.4, the grievance of the assessee is with regard to confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
