Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing M. Suhramaniam vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 June, 1992

M/S.Agi Music Sdn Bhd vs Ilaiyaraja on 24 November, 2007

(xxv) Finally Mr.Ilaiyaraja places great reliance upon an order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in M.Subramaniam Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (272 ITR 525) to the effect that Echo is only a licencee and not an owner of the intellectual property in the ‘sound recording’ based on the music compositions of Mr.Ilaiyaraja. This http://www.judis.nic.in 24 position was canvassed successfully by Echo before the Income tax authorities in the context of proceedings under the Income tax Act, 1961 and Echo is thus estopped from taking a contrary and contradictory view now, in civil proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Eicher Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 May, 2002

He also refers the decision of Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M. Subramaniam v. Dy. CIT (1992) 42 ITD 676 (Mad) wherein under similar facts and on identical issue, the amount was held allowable in full as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. The learned authorised representative further submits that the mere right to sub-licence vested in the assessee, that too with prior approval of MMC cannot result in the expenditure being treated as capital expenditure. He also refers the following decisions :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 102 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Gramophone Co. Of India Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 July, 1993

14. The question has directly come up for consideration before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra). That was also a case of an assessee carrying on business of manufacturing pre-recorded cassettes and selling them. He entered into agreements with producers of Cinema films for obtaining the right to reproduce the film song and paid royalty as a percentage of the sales of the cassettes. The Tribunal after an elaborate discussion of the facts as well as agreements entered into between the assessee and the film producers, took the view that notwithstanding the use of the word 'assign' in the agreement which conveyed the meaning that the agreement is one of assignment of the copyright, the real object of the agreement was only to grant a licence to the assessee in that case to reproduce the music in music cassette, and therefore the payment of the royalty for such licence was an expenditure incurred for the purpose of obtaining a basic raw-material namely the film song, and therefore the same was allowable item of revenue expenditure. The Tribunal viewed the agreement as one granting licence to the assessee to reproduce the songs.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tips Cassettes & Record Co. vs Asstt. Cit on 13 July, 2000

Since we have held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly distinguished the Tribunal orders, this finding also cannot be upheld. By point No. 9, the Commissioner (Appeals) has made a feeble attempt to distinguish M. Subramaniam's case (cited supra) decided by Madras Bench. We have already held that the case is applicable to assessee's case and the distinction as being sought to be made out by Commissioner (Appeals) is not on proper reasonings. In fine, since the expenditure is not capital in nature, the same cannot be covered in the scope of provisions of section 35A irrespective of the words "copyrights".
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1