Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Geeva Films on 28 February, 1979
We may also notice here that the special leave petition filed against the decision in CIT v. Geeva films in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1909 of 1980, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on November 17, 1982, as could be seen from CIT v. Geeva Films [1983]140 ITR (St.) 1.
Section 119 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs B.M. Edward, India Sea Foods on 26 February, 1979
Again, in CIT v. Geeva Films , this principle was reiterated following CIT v. B. M. Edward, India Sea Foods [FB].
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu vs Carborundum Universal Ltd. on 3 August, 1983
In other words, if a person carries on the business of production of films, he may not only produce the films but also prepare the positive prints for the purpose of exhibition or he may not take steps for the exhibition of the film having produced it. The production and exhibition of a feature film constitutes two distinct and separate stages and while the former would take in all activities which culminate in the production of a feature film, the latter contemplates a stage subsequent to the completion of the production of the film, viz., exhibition of the film produced. Viewed thus, any expenditure incurred in connection with the preparation of the positive prints for purposes of exhibition would really be post-production expenses and also an item of expenditure in relation to business of production and exhibition of feature films and would, therefore, quality for deduction as expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. We have not been referred to any provision in the Act or the rules disallowing such expenditure as an item of business expenditure for the purpose of section 37 of the Act. Though learned counsel for the Revenue placed considerable reliance upon the decision in CIT v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 621 (Mad), we are of the view that decision does not in any manner assist the Revenue. In that case, the assessee claimed deduction of a certain amount in the computation of its profits and gains of the business by way of contribution to the superannuation fund of its foreign collaborators and that claim was disallowed by the authorities below. However, the Tribunal held that though that amount was not an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act as the contribution was not to a recognised provident fund or to an approved superannuation fund nor could be allowed under section 37 of the Act, the payment was allowable under section 28 of the Act. On a reference, it was held that the nature of payment being one described in section 36(1)(iv) of the Act and as it could not be deducted under the section, it could be held to be deductible under section 28 of the Act on general principles in arriving at the true profits and gains of the business in a commercial sense. In the view we have taken that the expenditure incurred in connection with the obtaining of positive prints is really in the nature of post-production expenditure and that there is no provision in the Act or the rules obliging the authorities to disallow such expenditure, the claim of the assessee that such expenditure would fall under section 37 of the Act is, in our view, well-founded. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Section 64 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs N.T. Ramarao (H.U.F.) on 19 November, 1984
In CIT v. N. T. Ramarao (HUF) , the assessee, whose accounting year corresponded to the calendar year, released a film in October, 1970, and claimed the entire cost of production of the film as deduction for the assessment year 1971-72. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee purchased the rights of exhibition of a film and released the film in December, 1972, and claimed the cost of lease of rights as deduction for the assessment year 1972-73 based on the circular of the Board dated October 4, 1969. The Income-tax Officer applied circular No. 92, dated September 18, 1972, which was also subsequently further modified and restricted the allowance on a graded scale related to the cost of production and this was also confirmed on appeal. But the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction on the basis of Circular No. 30, dated October 4, 1969, was admittedly in force during the assessment years in question corresponding to January 1, 1970, to December 31, 1971, and it was, therefore, applicable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction of the entire cost of production of the film as well as the cost of purchase of lease rights. This decision also, in our view, clearly supports the stand taken by the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jyothi Pictures on 5 June, 1987
In CIT v. Jyothi Pictures , the assessee, who was engaged in the production, sale and distribution of films, produced a film at a cost of about 3.75 lakhs of rupees and released the picture in June, 1972. The accounting year followed by the assessee closed on September 30 of that year and the assessee wrote off the entire cost of the picture and claimed deduction of the entire cost under Board's Circular No. 30 dated October 4, 1969. However, the Income-tax Officer took the view that the Board's Circular No. 92, dated September 18, 1972, applied and the assessee was therefore, entitled to write off only 50% of the cost of production and the balance in the next year. But the Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee. On a reference, it was held that Board's Circular No. 92 dated September 18, 1972, was issued even during the currency of the assessee's accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 and as the revised Circular No. 92, dated September 18, 1972, was in force on the first day of the assessment year concerned, that world govern the case. It was also further pointed that what is relevant is the assessment year and as the circular was in force on the first day of the assessment year, it would apply to that assessment year. From this decision also, it follows that if a circular was in force on the first day of the assessment year, the benefit there of should be made available to the assessee. In this case, as noticed earlier, Board's Circular No. 30, dated October 4, 1969, was in force on the first day of the relevant assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was quite right in holding that the assessee was justified in writing off the entire cost of production in accordance with the Board's Circular No. 30 dated October 4, 1969, though the assessments are made after the coming into force of Board's Circular No. 92, dated September 18, 1972. We, therefore, answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Modern Theatres Ltd. on 3 December, 1962
8. Learned counsel for the Revenue Contended that in view of the option exercised by the assessee under rule 9A(11)(a)(ii) of the Rules, the cost of positive prints cannot be included in the cost of production and further that if that item of expenditure cannot be taken into account under rule 9A of the Rules, it is not open to the Tribunal to allow such expenditure as a permissible deduction under section 37 of the Act. Reference was made in the connection to the decisions in CIT v. Modern Theatres Ltd. [1963] 50 ITR 548 (Mad) and CIT v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 621 (Mad). However, learned counsel for assessee submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in obtaining positive prints is really in the nature of post production expenditure and cannot be properly included in the cost of production within the meaning of rule 9A of the Rules and that in the absence of any provision in the Act of the Rules disallowing such expenditure and also a non obstante provision in rule 9A of the Rules, relief with reference to the expenditure incurred in obtaining positive prints cannot be denied to the assessee.