9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) 3, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances in the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the claim of write off expenditure incurred for the abandoned film 2. The appellant prays that the order o f CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Rajesh Khanna in ITA No.4804/Bom/2000 AY 2002-03, dated 17.1.2003 as well as in the case of M/s M J Radical entertainment Co.(India )Pvt, ITA No.4550/M/2004, order dated 31.1.2007 and in the case of V.K.Sood (ITA No.1463/Bom/1990, dated 30.10.1995. 6. We have heard the learned AR as well as the leaned DR and considered the relevant record. At the outset, we note that the issue stands co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. for AY 1998-99 in ITA No. 4550/M/2004 order dated. 31st January, 2007. The AO made the addition on the ground that the department had not accepted the order of ITAT and an appeal had been filed against that order of ITAT u/s 260A of the Act. The CIT(A) followed the orders of the ITAT and deleted the disallowance by observing as under(from the order of CIT(A) for AY 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock-in-trade. The appellant through the learned AR argued that the only contention of the AO for making the disallowance was that the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Khanna supra. 3.1 I have considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. It is seen that the only basis for disallowance is that the department is in appeal before High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has relied upon the orders of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We find that the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO following the orders of ITAT. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the revenue in both the assessment years under consideration are dismissed. 7. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
