Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: FIRC in Amitabh Bachchan vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 May, 2005Matching Fragments
(e) income from programme 'KBC' could not accrue to M/s ABCL as contract was between appellant and M/s SIPL and M/s EEL, as the claim of M/s ABCL was based on terms of agreements dt. 10th Jan., 1995 and 11th Feb., 1995 with the appellant without any relevance to the source from which the income was earned by the appellant and amounted to overriding title of M/s ABCL thereon. Further, the amount was directly received on 26th Dec., 2000 by M/s ABCL as per FIRC dt. 13th Feb., 2001 from Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.
(a) the appellant is a well-known 'artist', so mentioned even in the assessment order;
(b) the income from 'KBC' has been derived by him in the exercise of his profession as an actor; .
(c) this income is from a non-resident, M/s EEL, in British Virgin Island; and
(d) this income has been brought into India on behalf of the appellant on 26th Dec., 2000 as per FIRC, dt. 13th Feb., 2001 from Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., which is Form No. 10H submitted to learned AO as noted in assessment order itself and erred in holding that this deduction was not allowable as
(V) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing."
3. During the asst. yr. 2001-02, the assessee hosted for the first time a television programme show for M/s Star Television India (P) Ltd. (in short SIPL) by the name of Kaun Banega Crorepati (in short KBC). The assessee filed his return of income on 31st Oct., 2001 declaring total income of Rs. 4,61,97,840. The assessee thereafter filed revised return of income on 31st Oct., 2002 declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,88,217. The assessee filed re-revised return of income on 31st March, 2003 declaring total income of Rs. 3,23,52,630. In response to queries by the concerned AO, the assessee filed various details such as copy of tripartite agreement with E Entertainment Ltd. (EEL) and M/s SIPL, copy of the accounts of various parties, modalities involved in arbitration proceedings, cashflow statement and copies of agreement with various parties in support of the professional receipts. The AO observed, that in the returns filed by the assessee, the figures of not only the expenses but also receipts varied. In his return of income, the assessee has shown receipt of Rs. 23 crores from M/s EEL, a nonresident company, based in British Virgin Island (in short BVIL). The AO further observed that out of the said amount of Rs. 23 crores, the assessee transferred Rs. 21.67 crores to M/s Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd. (in short ABCL). The assessee has claimed to have transferred the said amount as per agreement. The assessee was asked to furnish the said agreement, copies of FIRC, etc. in support of the said transaction.
Taking into account the lump sum remuneration of Rs. 15 crores paid at the time of the execution of the agreement plus further remuneration as provided in Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the agreement I consider it fair, equitable and just that 30 per cent of the receipts by the respondent from KBC programme be treated as his income and the remaining 70 per cent be treated as the income of the claimant company."
3.14 Assessee was asked by the AO to show cause as to why based on assessee's tripartite agreement EEL and M/s SIPL, the arbitration award, assessee's agreement with ABCL, copies of FIRC and TDS certificates, it should not be inferred that the whole transaction involving transfer of receipt on account of KBC show from assessee to ABCL, be not regarded as 'make believe' arrangement and treated as assessee's income as already claimed before the arbitrator and taxed in his hands accordingly.