9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to redetermine the cost of production in the assessment of the assessee - even the alternative plea of the assessee that de hors the provisions of Rule 9A, the difference between the cost of acquisition of the film Rudraksh to the assessee and the cost of realization from the exhibition of the film during the previous year should be allowed as a deduction, is acceptable – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld as no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1360 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. A. Sayed,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr P C Chhotaray For the Respondents : Mr R Murlidhar, Mr Balasaheb Yawale M/s Rajesh Shah Co OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,232/- in the Profit and Loss Account of the firm. The Assessing Officer has referred to the Return of Income filed by the Assessee showing the loss of ₹ 3,01,53,795/-. The Assessing Officer has observed that during the scrutiny assessment, Assessee claimed that entire assets and liabilities of M/s. Karma Entertainment were taken over by him as sole proprietor. M/s. Karma Entertainment also filed Return of Income for Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the Assessee claiming the un-recouped cost of production of the movie in the hands of the Assessee and showed realization of only ₹ 1,39,709/- while the gross loss is ₹ 2.92 Crores and the net loss declared at ₹ 3,01,53,795/- 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the firm. However, when that is a separate entity and now the assessment is in relation to a sole proprietor after dissolution of the firm's business but on his taking over the same, then indirectly the Assessing Officer could not have made any adjustment in case of M/s. Karma Entertainment for the assessment year 2004-2005. Therefore, the Commissioner held that this was not necessary nor permissible in law. The Assessing Officer lost sight of the fact that he is making an assessment of the income of the Assessee before us and for Assessment Year 2005-2006. 5. Holding thus he allowed the ground no.4 in the Assessee's Appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the matter was carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing them as post production expenses. He also pointed point out that the reopening of the assessment in the case of Karma Entertainment for AY 04-05 has already been struck down by the CIT(A) to be not proper and the order of reassessment now stands annulled. 30. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, the claim made by the assessee was rightly accepted by the CIT(A). Even if Rule 9A is applied, the assessee was entitled to claim the un-recouped cost of production in terms of Rule 9A(3) of the Rules. This un-recouped cost has been determined at a sum of ₹ 2,93,73,793/- by the AO in the assessment of the firm for asstt. year 2004-05 and the same has become final. It is not open to the AO of the assessee to redetermine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
