Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in ignoring that Rule 9A and 98 are available only for ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 production of feature films and not for production of TV serials and programmes?
7. Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in following the directions of the ITAT in not considering that expenses incurred towards TV serials and programmes and film rights created an intangible asset and such asset has to be depreciated over its life time as held in Accounting Standard-26?

14. The next issue that came for consideration from ground numbers 3 to 7 of Revenue's appeal is, disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on the cost of production of TV serials and programs. The facts with regard to impugned dispute are that, the appellant company is in the business of production and telecasting of TV serials and has debited ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 an amount of Rs.142,60,61,604/- towards cost of production of TV serials and programs as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed towards cost of production of TV serials as revenue expenditure on the ground that, the cost of production of TV serials and programs is not covered under Rule 9A and 9B of I.T. Rules, 1962 and further, by incurring production expenses, the appellant company creates a copyright over the TV serials which is in the nature of "Intangible Assets"

16. Shri B. Bala Krishna, the learned CIT-DR submitted that, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing claim on cost of production of TV serials and programs as revenue expenditure without appreciating the fact that, by incurring of such expenditure, the assessee has created an asset of enduring benefit because, of it's repeated telecast value. The CIT-DR further referring to the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Zee Media Corporation Limited submitted that, in the said case the appellant itself amortized such expenditure for a period of it's telecast/exhibition considering the repeated telecast value and not as revenue expenditure in the first year itself. Therefore, allowing deduction towards cost of production of TV serial as revenue expenditure by following the said decision is incorrect. Learned DR further referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Television-18 Limited 364 ITR 597 (Del.) submitted that, the ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 subject matter in the above case was "creation of news content" which does not have repeated telecast value as against the TV serials and programs and film rights because, TV serials and film rights have repeated value because, it can be telecasted at any time which is evident from various TV programs which have been repeatedly telecasted over a period of time. Learned DR further, referring to the appellant's claim of depreciation on film software library submitted that, appellant itself has treated purchase of film software library as an intangible asset and claimed depreciation @ 25%. However, when it comes to claiming deduction towards cost of production of TV serials, the appellant company claimed that, it is a revenue expenditure, contrary to it's own admission. Therefore, he submitted that, although, the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts in light of relevant provisions while allowing depreciation @ 25%, but, the learned CIT(A) allowed relief by following certain judicial precedents, which are factually different from the case of the appellant company. Therefore, ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 he submitted that, addition made by the Assessing Officer should be upheld.

18. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The appellant company has claimed the entire cost of production of TV serials and programs as revenue expenditure in the year of incurring of said ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 expenditure. The Assessing Officer has a treated cost of production of TV serials and program as capital in nature, because, the said expenditure creates an enduring benefit to the appellant company because of it's nature of repeated telecasting of TV serials and programs and accordingly, allowed depreciation @ 25% as an "Intangible Asset". We find that, this issue is no longer res integra. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in appellant's own case for the assessment year 2015-2016 in ITA.No.2244/Hyd./2018 (supra), had considered the similar issue and after considering relevant submissions and also by following Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dharma Productions (P) Ltd., [2019] 104 taxmann.com 211 (Bom.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Television Eighteen India Limited [2014] 46 taxmann.com 283 (Del.), allowed the claim of the assessee on account of cost of production of TV serials and programs as revenue expenditure and the relevant observations of the ITAT, Hyderabad Tribunal are as under :