TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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. Gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any adjudication. Vide its grounds Nos. 2 to 9, the assessee is aggrieved that a sum of Rs.55 lakhs being advance received by the assessee as professional receipts were considered as income by the Assessing Officer and this was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee, who is a renowned film star, had in the relevant previous year received the following amounts for his commitment to do films : M/s. Photon factory Rs. 20,00,000. M/s. Studio Green Rs. 35,00,000. It was explained that such amounts were received as advance for acting in films and in later years adjusted against the professional fees. However, the Assessing Officer noting that the assessee was following the cash system, considered suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal in the case of K. K. Khullar v. Deputy CIT [2008] 304 ITR (AT) 295 ; [2009] 116 ITD 301 and that of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of S. Priyadarsan v. Joint CIT [2001] 73 TTJ (Chennai) 738 for canvassing his contention that similar advances could not be treated as income. Per contra the learned Departmental representative submitted that the decision in the assessee's own case for the earlier years, relied on by the learned authorised representative, was distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, according to him, decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of A. Ramki v. Deputy CIT (I. T. A. No. 1219/Mds/02 dated July 28, 2007) and that of Ms. D. Meena v. Deputy CIT (I. T. A. No. 1624/1625/ Mds/2000 dated July 19, 2005) clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal advance received as income, unless and until proposed assignments had materialised. Though the learned Departmental representative put great efforts to submit that fact situation for the impugned assessment year could have been different from that of the earlier years, which was dealt with by the Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 596/597/Mds/09, as aforesaid, we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment year based on his own decision for the earlier years, which was later reversed by the Tribunal. As for the reliance placed by learned counsel for the Revenue on the decisions of A. Ramki and D. Meena the former case was decided relying on the latter dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 as tax from this sum, but remittance thereof was made to the exchequer only on July 28, 2006. Therefore, relying on section 40(a)(ia), the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the expenses of Rs. 4,89,345. Such treatment was confirmed by the in the assessee's appeal. Now before us, the learned authorised representative submits that the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Lakshmi Communication did not fall within the purview of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to him, the amounts paid were not in the nature of interest, commission, brokerage, fees for professional service or even for technical services. Hence, it was urged that there was no obligation for the assessee to deduct tax at source. In any case, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said sub-section and accordingly, where tax was deductible and it was so deducted during the last month of the previous year, and remittance thereof was made before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act, then disallowance under the said sub-section could not be made. 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 under section 139(1) of the Act and hence by virtue of this 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. When ground Nos. 14 and 15 were taken up, the learned authorised representative submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
