Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 969 - AT - Income TaxAppeal against the order of CIT - advance of Rs. 55 lakhs received by the assessee as professional receipts - considered as ''income'' - cash system of accounting - HELD THAT:- Just because the assessee had received an amount of advance such sum cannot be treated as income, only for a reasoning that it was following the cash system of accounting. It is on account of this reason that in the assessee's own case for the earlier years, this Tribunal had held that it would not be proper and appropriate to treat professional advance received as income, unless and until proposed assignments had materialised. The assessee's contention that income could not be recognised till the artist had acted in the film, for which the advances were received, carries great strength. Storyline was not fixed, neither was the name, not even the co-artists were known. since this Tribunal had taken a view in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case for earlier years, on similar fact situation, we find no compelling reasons to depart from the view taken earlier. Therefore, we find that amount of Rs. 55 lakhs received by the assessee as advance could not have been treated as his income for the impugned assessment year. Such addition stands deleted. Ground Nos. 2 to 9 of the assessee are allowed. Disallowance for sum of managing the call sheets paid as agency fees - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that management of the call sheets of the assessee could not be considered as professional services or technical services. Expertise required for maintaining call sheets could not be considered to be of a level sufficient to be called as "professional services". Neither any professional qualification was required for giving such services, nor could the AO show that such services were rendered by any professionals. There is no case for the Revenue that any professional expertise was required for giving dates on call sheets. Such payment could never be treated as agency fees in any case. Here, the assessee had deducted the sum and paid it on July 28, 2006, which is well before the due date for filing the return u/s139(1) and hence by virtue of the amendment, the payment could not have been disallowed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the disallowance of Rs. 4,89,345 was not called for and such disallowance stands deleted. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
|