TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Ld. CIT(A)’s order has also reproduced in the above part of this order. In absence of any discrepancy pointed out in these findings, it cannot be said that Ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee without application of mind or in absence of details of facts. The respective dates are clearly mentioned in respect of rights available to the assessee and the period upto which those rights were sold. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1868/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - I. P. Bansal, JM And Sanjay Arora, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Lav Kumar For the Respondent : Shri Deepak Tralshawala ORDER Per I. P. Bansal, JM. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and it is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3,Mumbai dated 9/12/2010 for assessment year 2004-05. Grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) Mumbai erred in deleting excess amortization cost debited to the profit and loss account by the assessee which was in contravention to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 60,00,000 Satellite Rights of Six films ₹ 86,28,000 ₹ 1,15,50,111 B) Regarding Serial No.1 of above statement the assessee states that the Satellite Righs of 107 films were sold at ₹ 2,94,41,575/- and not at ₹ 2,91,41,875/-. Further, the assessee states that after selling the said Satellite Rights, the assesssee did not have any Satellite Right available to him for future exploitation of the said firms. In a way the assessee had sold his total Satellite Rights in respect of said 107 films, and therefore assessee was right in valuing the cost of said Satellite Right of 107 films amounting to ₹ 3,40,26,079/- from stock. C) Regarding Serial No.2 of above statement, the assessee states that after selling the said Satellite Rights of film Split Wide Open for sum of ₹ 15,00,000/-, the assessee did not have any Satellite Rights available for future exploitation of said film Split Wide Open so in a way the assessee had sold his total Satellite rights in respect of the said film Splitwide Open and therefore assessee was right in valuing the cost of said Satellite Right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation method as estimated by the management. It was further stated in the audit report that exploited film copy rights are charged to revenue in the year in which the primary right was sold which means that assessee was valuing its stock of film copy rights and maintaining inventory on the basis of cost or fair market value whichever is less. For the sake of completeness submissions of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below: i) That the ledger account of VCD rights in the books of Appellant from F.Y. 99-00 to 02- 03 clearly show that from the date of purchase of VCD rights in question Appellant had never reduced the cost of said rights in spite of the fact that Appellant earned a sum of ₹ 27,07,656/- in F.Y 01-02. Appellant being of the view that FMV of the VCD rights had not changed did not reduce the value on 31/3/02 but on 31/03/2003 Appellant had a bonafide belief that no further revenue was possible and therefore rightly valued the stock of said rights at nil. ii) Appellant had a net loss of over ₹ 6 crores and it did not benefit Appellant anything extra to reduce the value at nil as alleged by AO. iii) Appellant also submitted a statement s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (e) Film Kaala Sona Rights with Appellant w.e.f. 9-2-94 for 10 years. Sold for period till 8-2- 2004 (f) Film Damul Rights with appellant till 30-6-05 Sold for period till 30.6.05 2) Regarding sale of Split wide Open, appellant had cable TV and video rights. These were upto 30-9-05 and 28-6-05 respectively. Appellant sold these till 7-12-05 to M/s. Livewire Programming Trading Co. Ltd. 3) Regarding satellite rights of 6 films to M/s. Livewire supra agreements were seen in respect of Roja, Lahu Ke Do Rang, Agnichakra and Joshilay. Regarding Roja, appellant had rights till 1-4-07, Agnichakra till 30-6-05, Joshilay till 31-3-09 and lahu Ke Do Rang till 31-3-05. The details of Muthu Maharaj and Dil Hi dil Mein were not seen. Agreement for sale of these films were for period w.e.f. 28-11-03 for 3 years i.e. 28-11- 06 except Lahu Ke Do Rang which was till 31-3-05. 4.2 On the aforementioned facts Ld. CIT(A) has observed that A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their contentions have carefully been considered. The addition was made by the AO in respect of three categories which have been described in the reply submitted by the assessee before AO which is has also been reproduced in the above part of this order. The addition was in respect of three categories: 1. Satellite rights of 107 films. 2. Split wide open (satellite rights) 3. Satellite rights of six films. During the course of first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had required the assessee to submit various details and to the extent details were made available, Ld. CIT(A) has given his finding and to the extent details were not available Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to verify the details. The findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A) are based on the details filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). No discrepancy has been pointed out by the Revenue in the findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A). With regard to 107 satellite rights, it has been specifically mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) that realization of the assessee from these films were upto the date of rights available with the assessee and these facts have been described in the table which remains uncontroverted. Similarly, with regard to split ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
