Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri S.J. Suryah Versus The Income Tax Officer, Media Ward III, Chennai

2016 (9) TMI 388 - ITAT CHENNAI

Unexplained investment under section 69 - Held that:- Had it been genuine transaction, the assessee should have been explained the entire transaction between the assessee and Shri Prasad Potluri and the circumstances under which it was paid by Shri Prasad Potluri to the assessee on behalf of Indira Production Pvt. Ltd. Further, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment requested Indira Production Pvt. Ltd. for the personal appearance and explains it. But, instead of personal appearan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roperly explained. Therefore, the provisions of section 69 of the Act was rightly invoked by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee - Adhoc addition towards gross remuneration for “Kushi” – Hindi version of movie - Held that:- Admittedly, in this case, the assessee has filed a statement before us confirming the receipt of income from Narasimha Enterprises owned by Shri Bonny Kapoor for ₹.1,15,96,414/-. In addition to this, it is to be noted th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ider the revised computation of income for the assessment year 2002-03 with reference to the income at ₹.1,27,28,414/- subject to our finding in para 3.5 herein below. In other words, the assessee is not entitled for loss of ₹.11 lakhs in respect of “Kushi” Telugu movie. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A.No.1863/Mds/2014 - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. For The Re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Brief facts of the case are that at the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has deposited an amount of ₹.30 lakhs in his bank account maintained in Dena Bank, T. Nagar Branch, Chennai in account No. 10728, which had been invested on the same day in the fixed deposit in FD/4461/3 on 21.12.2001. The Assessing Officer has called for explanation for this amount regarding source and nature of the transactions. The assessee has not filed any details b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n amount of ₹.30.00 lakhs was passed on to the assessee on 14.12.2001 by way of journal entry paid to the assessee through Shri Prasad Potluri on behalf of the company. According to the ld. AR, the said amount was received by the assessee from Indira Production Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Prasad Potluri and it has to be considered as explained. The ld. DR has submitted that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient to hold that the source of ₹.30 lakhs is properly explained. 2.3 W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

There is no counter confirmation from Shri Prasad Potluri. Had it been genuine transaction, the assessee should have been explained the entire transaction between the assessee and Shri Prasad Potluri and the circumstances under which it was paid by Shri Prasad Potluri to the assessee on behalf of Indira Production Pvt. Ltd. Further, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment requested Indira Production Pvt. Ltd. for the personal appearance and explains it. But, instead of personal ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not properly explained. Therefore, the provisions of section 69 of the Act was rightly invoked by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we find no infirmity in the orders of authorities below on this issue and accordingly, the same is confirmed. 3. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹.1 crore as income of the assessee based on the statement of Shri Bonny Kapoor without considering the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssued to the assessee after survey conducted at the premises of the assessee on 04.09.2003 and issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2004. The assessee received remuneration for the Hindi version of film Kushi of ₹.50 lakhs from Shri Bonny Kapoor and claimed an expenditure of ₹.10 lakhs. The net income shown was ₹.40 lakhs. Against enquiry with Shri Bonny Kapoor, who has stated that the original agreement for directing Hindi version of Kushi , it was agreed for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e time of assessment, the assessee filed revised computation of income which reads as under: Rs. Income admitted as return dated 15.09.2004 40,00,000 Add: Amount paid treated as advance originally 05.10.2001 10,00,000 02.11.2001 10,00,000 12.02.2002 5,00,000 01.04.2002 10,00,000 Difference in statement treated as personal and not related profession as per statement 16,25,028 Outstanding payment due 34,13,386 85,38,414 Sri Surya Movies: Telugu Kushi remunerations 13,00,000 1,38,38,414 Less: Loss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

83,00,000 Less: Office expenses and air ticket 14,61,586 Assessed income 1,68,34,414 3.2 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the ad-hoc addition of ₹.1.00 crore towards gross remuneration for Kushi - Hindi version of movie. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹.1.00 crore. 3.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.4 We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The contention of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version