9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4365/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2015 - Joginder Singh, JM And Rajendra, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Akhilendra Yadav For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Joginder Singh,JM The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28/03/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: i. The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the cost of ₹ 3,38,58,888/- towards abandoned film by relying on the ratio of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sh. Rajesh Khanna, thereby ignoring the fact that the department has filed a review petition against the said decision. ii. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Radical Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4550/M/2004 Assessment Year 1998-99) dated 31/01/2007 and ACIT vs Dream Merchants Enterprise (ITA No.3243 and 3245/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year 2006-07 2004-05) dated 09/02/2010 and ACIT vs Rajiv Tolani (ITA NO.2522/Mum/2010 Assessment Year 2007-08) dated 27/04/2011 wherein following the ratio of decision in the case of Mr. Rajesh Khanna and above decision, disallowance made on account of cost of abandoned film were deleted. Further the decision in the case of Rajesh Khanna is also affirmed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Khanna (ITA No.3875 of 2010) decided on 19/09/2011. The said decision has been followed in the case of Venus Records and Tapes Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA NO.666/Mum/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le jurisdictional High Court. In the case of Rajesh Khanna also disallowance was made on account of cost of abandoned film. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal and that decision was also followed in the case of Venus Records Tapes Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.666/Mum/2010) order dated 07/09/2012. No contrary facts/decision was brought to our notice by the Revenue, therefore, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). It is affirmed leading to dismissal of appeal of the Revenue. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
