9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or acquiring audio rights as revenue expenditure and are not capital expenditure and thereby allowing the claim of the assessee. 2.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had debited audio rights expenses of ₹ 3,17,07,305/- to the profit loss account. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why these expenses should not be treated as capital expenditure incurred for the acquisition of audio-video rights/copy rights. Rejecting the explanations given by the assessee and following the orders by his predecessor in assessee s own case from Assessment Years 1990-91 onwards, the Assessing Officer treated the expenses of ₹ 3,17,07,305/- as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation of 25% on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim of the assessee on the ground that the expenditure is capital in nature. The Tribunal for all the earlier assessment years has been deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. the assessing officer made the addition observing at paragraph 3.3 on page 7 that the revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and has filed an appeal before Hon'ble Bombay High Court and that the addition is made by following the stand of the revenue in the earlier years to keep the issue alive. The first appellate authority applied the decision of the tribunal and deleted the addition. We see no infirmity in the same. In fact, ground 1B of the revenue appeals states that the ground is taken because the department has not accepted the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the department has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and has filed appeal before the jurisdictional High Court for Assessment Year 1991-92 onwards. Therefore, to keep the mater alive and following the orders of his predecessor, he disallowed an amount of Rs. .69,27,645/- being 1/3rd of the total expenditure. 6.2 In appeal, the CIT(A) following the order of his predecessors for Assessment Year 2006-07 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal here before the Tribunal. 7 After hearing both the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
