9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 39,52,000 had nothing to do with the further rejection of the proposal of the assessee by the Doordarshan vide letter dated January 22, 2010 which ultimately resulted in treating the cost at nil. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.292/M/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2014 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vikas Bohra, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Jain, D.R ORDER Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member).- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CIT (A)) dated October 31, 2012 relevant to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the profit and loss account on account of reduction in the value of closing stock based on market value of the said serial, as the said serial was rejected by the Doordarshan and had become stale with the passage of time. It was also submitted that the said serial was produced for Doordarshan in the financial year 2006-07 but due to delay in production of the certain episodes of the serial, the said episodes were rejected by the Doordarshan and were not telecasted. Due to the abovesaid rejection of the episodes and with the passage of time, the cost of the teleserials got reduced and was assessed as per market value at ₹ 39,52,000. A fresh proposal was submitted to the Doordarshan for selling the said teleserials at reduced cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary 17, 2003) as well as in the case of Asst. CIT v. J Radical Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 4550/M/2004-assessment year 1998-98 dated January 31, 2007) and Asst.CIT v. Dream Merchants Enterprise (I. T. A. Nos. 3243 and 3245/M/2009 assessment years 2006-07 and 2004-05 dated February 9, 2010) and Asst. CIT v. Rajiv Tolani (I.T. A. No. 633/Mum/2010 assessment year 2006-07 dated September 30, 2010) and ITO v. Rajiv Tolani (I. T. A. No. 2522/Mum/ 2010 assessment year 2007-08 dated April 27, 2011) wherein following the ratio of decision in the case of Rajesh Khanna and the above deci sions, disallowance made on account cost of abandoned films were deleted. The act of rejection of teleserials amounts to abandon of tele serials. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
