Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 577 - AT - Income TaxAccrual of income - addition being token advance received by the appellant from UTV Motion Pictures - Held that:- The advance received by the assessee from UTV Motion Pictures (Mauritius) Ltd. during the relevant assessment year cannot be treated as the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10, since the income has not crystallised to the assessee. Accordingly we hereby direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition which was further confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the relevant assessment year being advance received by the assessee for future performance. Amount received from Photon Factory and from AVM Production - assessee submitted that these amounts were already treated as income of the assessee during the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and therefore, if the same is treated as income for the relevant assessment year, it would amount to double taxation - Held that:- Considering the claim of the assessee, in the interest of justice we hereby remit the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for verifying whether the claim of the assessee is true. If the submission of the assessee is found to be correct, then the learned Assessing Officer is duty bound to delete the addition made once again in the hands of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Addition towards the value of gold jewellery - Held that:- It cannot be doubted that the family cannot accumulate jewellery worth ₹ 39,90,000 over a period of time being either purchased from own declared source of income or received as gifts during marriage functions, etc. Shri R. Sivakumar has also admitted during the course of search that he possessed 400 sovereign grams of gold jewellery. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Assessing Officer had made the addition without examining the veracity of the claim of the appellant's father. The learned authorised representative had also stated before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by furnishing an affidavit of Shri R.Sivakumar dated February 25, 2013 that Shri R. Sivakumar was in the profession of acting nearly 40 years from 1965 to 2005 and his present source of income is from royalty received from the books written by him and public lectures. These facts were not taken into consideration by the Revenue. Therefore, we do not find it appropriate on the part of the Revenue to make an addition without verifying the claim of the assessee, the family's financial status and drawings made by the assessee and his family members over the earlier years. Accordingly we hereby delete the addition made - Decided in favour of assessee.
|