9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance u/s. 14A when the investment was made in subsidiaries as a strategic investment is no more good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Thus, this argument does not hold and liable to be rejected - this matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for verification of accounts and for decision, keeping in view the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), HDFC Bank [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] thus, we restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and to decide the issue keeping in view the decisions and after verification of the accounts of the assessee. Addition on account of expenditure in respect of programs and film rights by treating the purchase cost of programs and film rights as intangible assets and allowing deprecation @25% on the same - Held that:- This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for the Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see filed before the Assessing Officer a rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act requesting for withdrawal of corresponding TDS credit on the alleged difference of ₹.14,13,908/- claimed by the assessee at ₹.2,51,862/- whereas the withdrawal was considered only to the extent of ₹.28,278/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee requested the Assessing Officer to withdraw the TDS of ₹.2,51,862/- corresponding to the income of ₹.14,13,908/- and to reduce such income by amending the Assessment Order for the Assessment Year under consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that since the assessee never entered into any transactions as appearing in AS-26 to the extent of ₹.14,13,908/- there is no justification in treating the same as income and the corresponding TDS may be directed to be withdrawn. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No. 21 of the Paper Book submitted that in the course of the Assessment Proceedings it was submitted before the Assessing Officer that these transactions do not appear in the Books of Accounts of the assessee and the bank account also does not reflect any receipts from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticed that the AIR information showed an income of ₹ 2,76,302/- to the assessee from Ram Silk . The assessee however denied about receipt of any income from the said party. The AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to the above party calling for information/evidences from the above party. However, no reply was received from the said party. The assessee contended that in the absence of any evidence that such an amount was received by the assessee, no addition can be made. The AO, however, observed that since the information had been received from the department, hence the addition was to be made. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the addition observing that the assessee s PAN number might have been entered by the said party by mistake. Since the assessee has categorically denied the receipt of any income from the above party, the Ld. CIT(A), while relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Shri S. Ganesh vs. CIT ITA No.527/M/2010 08.12.10, deleted the addition so made by the AO. 9. Before us, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has relied upon the another de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared by the assessee far exceeds the professional fees shown in the AIR information, then additions solely based on the AIR information are not sustainable. 7. In view of our above observations and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the additions made by the Revenue solely based on the AIR information are not sustainable and the same are hereby ordered to be deleted. 10. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 8. As could be seen from the above the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. A.F. Ferguson Co. v. JCIT held that in the absence of any material brought by the Revenue that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fee which has been declared by him in the Profit and Loss Account additions solely based on AIR information are not sustainable. In the case on hand also addition was made solely based on the AIR information without bringing any cogent evidence on record to suggest that the assessee received income from the said parties especially when the assessee is denying any transactions with those parties. In the circumstances, we reverse the order of the Ld.CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the issue has been decided in assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2010-11 by the Tribunal in ITA.No. 7138 7139/Mum/2012 and 5413/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2014 wherein it was noted that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds, therefore no disallowance is required to be made u/s.14A. While holding so the Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., (supra). 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Allana Cold Storage Private Limited v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2366 2367/Mum/2015 dated 20.12.2017 wherein it has been held following the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal that the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) should be computed by considering only those which yielded exempt income during the year. 14. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also perused the orders of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. On a perusal of the order we find that the Tribunal recorded finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we have restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer while deciding the appeal of the assessee these grounds are also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication in the light of the observations made in assessee s appeal. 17. Coming to Ground No. (iii) and (iv) of the ground of appeal of the Revenue, it relates to the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of expenditure in respect of programs and film rights by treating the purchase cost of programs and film rights as intangible assets and allowing deprecation @25% on the same. 18. At the outset the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA.No.1590/Mum/2015 dated 12.08.2015 wherein addition/disallowance was deleted by the Tribunal. 19. Ld. DR fairly submitted that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. However, he strongly placed reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. 20. On a perusal of the Coordinate Bench order, we find that the issue of whether the assessee is entitled for ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim in the past. This is for the first time, AO disturbed the claim of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 32 (ii) of the Act, without any sustainable reasoning. Therefore, considering all the points mentioned above, we are of the firm opinion that the decision of the AO/CIT(A) is unsustainable legally. Hence, the assessee is entitled to claim the purchases of news items/non fictional items as an allowable expenditure. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the relevant addition. b. On the debits relating to the purchases of the TV Programs/Film rights: Assessee amortized the inventories as per the method of accounting consistently followed by him over the years. In fact, the Revenue has consistently allowed the claim in the past. This is for the first time, AO disturbed the claim of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 32 (ii) of the Act without any sustainable reasoning. We have perused he judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi and the order of the Tribunal of Chennai Bench in the case of M/s Sun TV Networks Ltd (supra). We have also extracted the relevant paragraphs and already placed in this order above. We find similar issue of amortiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
