Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prakash Pictures on 15 January, 2003
10. Another fact argued by assessee is that during AY 2009-10 the
assessee had included the entire expenditure under Cost of
Production and it was submitted that although the advertisement
expenditure incurred after censor board certificate is not to be
included in the Cost of Production, however the same still being a
business expenditure, should he allowed under section 37 of the Act.
While passing the assessment order of AY 2009-10 the AO
disallowed and the main reason of disallowing was that the assessee
had claimed the entire expenditure under Cost of Production instead
of claiming the post expenditure under section 37 of the Act it was
argued that this proposition is also accepted by Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case CIT Vs. Prakash Pictures, which brings out an
important aspect on this issue. In this decision, the Hon'ble High
Court did not allow the assessee company to raise the alternative
ground of allowing the expenditure u/s 37. Giving the decision on
this aspect, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S.M. Sagar on 22 January, 2003
456) and CIT vs S. M. Sagar (261 ITR 271)(Bom.), wherein,
it was held that the cost of production has to be allowed
23 ITA No.6174/Mum/2016
M/s Dharma productions Pvt. Ltd.
Section 44AD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mukta Arts Limited, Mumbai vs Acit., 11(1), Mumbai on 7 March, 2017
9A clearly states that expenditure incurred on positive
prints and advertisement is not allowable in the case of an
assessee engaged in the business of film production. The
Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of Mukta Arts
Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 292 ITR (AT) 16, Mumbai, wherein, a
similar issue came up for adjudication and the Tribunal
relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in
the case of Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd. and came to the
conclusion that such expenditure i.e. cost of making
positive prints is allowable u/s 37 of the Act. It can be
concluded that the expenditure which is incurred wholly
and exclusively for the purposes of business has to be
allowed under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act.
Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. And ... on 13 August, 2002
3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record. In the present
case, in the case of child artist and for their safety, the
family members like parents are a necessity and further to
get the best out of the child artist, such business expenses
become necessary. The ratio laid down in CIT vs George
Williamson (Assam) Ltd. 234 ITR 130, 132 (Gau.) supports
our view.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Sundaram Clayton Ltd. on 13 October, 1981
235 ITR 106, wherein, expenditure incurred on foreign
travel of wife of the Chief Executive of the assessee
company was held to be an allowable deduction. Identical
view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs
Sundaram Clayton Ltd.240 ITR 271, 274 (Mad.). It is not in
dispute by the Ld. Assessing Officer that such expenses
were not incurred by the assessee. The business necessity
27 ITA No.6174/Mum/2016
M/s Dharma productions Pvt. Ltd.
S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006
Considering the totality of facts, it can be concluded
that the child artist who actually acted in the film,
therefore, the expenses incurred for their
guardians/relatives has to be allowed as business expenses
u/s 37(1) of the Act. Our view find support from the
decision, identically, for Assessment Year 2010-11, order
dated 10/11/2014, wherein, the Tribunal also upheld the
order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for
Assessment Year 2006-07, order dated 10/11/2014. Our
view find support from the decision and the ratio laid down
therein S.A. Builders vs CIT (2007) 158 taxman 74
(Supreme Court), and various decision discussed in the
case of S.A. Builders, including the decision from Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in CIT vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madrasand ... vs M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd on 16 August, 1995
Considering the totality of facts, it can be concluded
that the child artist who actually acted in the film,
therefore, the expenses incurred for their
guardians/relatives has to be allowed as business expenses
u/s 37(1) of the Act. Our view find support from the
decision, identically, for Assessment Year 2010-11, order
dated 10/11/2014, wherein, the Tribunal also upheld the
order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for
Assessment Year 2006-07, order dated 10/11/2014. Our
view find support from the decision and the ratio laid down
therein S.A. Builders vs CIT (2007) 158 taxman 74
(Supreme Court), and various decision discussed in the
case of S.A. Builders, including the decision from Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in CIT vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.