Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ADIT (IT) 2 (2) , Mumbai Versus M/s. TAJ TV Ltd., C/o. Suresh Surana & Associates

Reopening the assessment u/s.147 - apportioning the expenses @75.705% instead of 67.58% - whether no income was attributable to assessee in India and there is also no PE? - Held that:- As relying on assessee's own case giving effect to the ITAT order [2016 (8)504 - ITAT MUMBAI] no income is attributable to the assessee in India, losses would not been available for set off and therefore, total income was computed as Nil. As the AO himself has accepted that no income is attributable to assessee in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

guru For The Assessee : Shri Madhur Agarwal ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 30/08/2013 for the A.Y.2005-06 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) holding that reopening the assessment u/s.147 was not valid. On merits revenue is aggrieved for allowing the opportunity of expenditure to the extent of 75.70% instead of 67.58% as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act dt. 29-3-2010. The AO has observed that while drawing the final statement of the Indian Operation in comparison to the Global Revenue that the expenses apportioned were @ 75.705% whereas the expenses should have been apportioned at the rate of 67.58% as detailed by the AO in para 3 to 4 of the assessment order. Accordingly, on the reasons discussed by the AO in para 3 & 4 of the assessment order, the AO restricted the expenses of allowance to the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

both, I find that all the details which were subjected to the reopening of the assessment was filed by the 'appellant company alongwith its original return of income filed. Thus, all such details were available on record, which were taken note by AO for re-opening of the assessment which was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act as on 27-12-2007. Even the AO took note of the detailed submissions of the appellant itself which was available before the AO at the time of original assessment when .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as disclosed its income in the current AY based on its past practice as it was disclosed in earlier year. Thus, I find that the appellant has disclosed its income in a consistent manner which was accepted by the department in all preceding AYs in the appellant's case. Taking note of all these facts as enumerated above, I am of the considered view that the re-opening of the assessment was not justified and correct on the part of the AO and hence the re-opening of the assessment itself is held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs, the appellant's AR has vehemently argued against the aforesaid action- of the AO and stated that the AO could not take note of the details available already on record. The appellant's AR argued that the comparison carried out by the AO for expenses was incorrect as the appellant has already reduced operating income, sale of decoders, receipt from Syndicate of Broadcast rights from the Global revenue, which were not in relation to the Indian operation of the appellant company. To this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the auditors as well as accepted by the tax authorities (including Honorable CIT(A) for earlier years as well as for the captioned assessment year. 2.0 The gross revenues as per the global operations for the year ended 31 March 2005 based on the global audited financial statements (audited by KPMG Mauritius) is tabulated as under: Revenue US$ Remarks relevant to Indian Operations Advertisement Sports Sales 9,902,181 Global revenue apportioned between 3 territories based on the actual revenues d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8 Reduced from the operating costs Total Revenue 19,035,454 3.0 The break up of the revenues as per the allocation sheet, which is used for compiling the financial statements of the Indian operations is as under: Particulars Global Revenue (US$) Revenue from Indian Operations (US$) Advertisement Spot Sales 10,027,182 7,688,723 Distribution Revenue 3,140,572 1,350,635 Production Income 1,575,000 1,575,000 Supreme Court Award 2,250,000 2,250,000 Global Revenue as per Allocation Sheet considered fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k up of Global Revenue as shown in financial statements of Indian operations as under:- Particulars Amount US$ Global Revenue as per Audited Global Financial Statements 19,035,454 Less: Operating Income which has been reduced from operating costs (the balance operating costs have been apportioned in the ratio of direct revenue i.e. 75.70%) 1,054,428 Less: Syndication Sales which has been reduced from Programming costs (the balance programming costs have been apportioned in the ratio of direct 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

n ratio Taj has acquired telecasting rights for certain territories / countries based on the event / programmes, in terms of tender and other circumstances. However, Taj does not telecast in all the territories / countries covered by the agreement. On account of this and due to other business reasons, Taj disposes part of such telecasting rights for certain territories and exploits the balance rights for telecasting. As such, the cost of telecasting rights for Taj is the cost net of such recover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re apportioned to the India operations and hence, it means that 75.70% of such syndication income & operating income is impliedly taxed in India, The aforesaid is evident from the allocation sheet as enclosed. 6.0 Explanation as regards Sale of Decoders not considered for determining allocation ratio * During the year, decoders were sold in the region other than India and hence allocated to particular territory on actual basis. Similarly, there are no decoder costs debited to India operation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00% outside India, it has not been considered for determining allocation ratio. 8.0 Calculation of the income 1 loss attributable to Indian Operations Revenues allocation Revenues considered by your Appellant Particulars Global Operations (US$) Indian Operations (US$) Revenues considered for allocation 16,992,754 12,864,358 Total costs (As per the allocation sheet) 20,152,688 13,961,158 Income / Loss) (3,159,934) (1,096,800) case the syndication revenues & other operating income is considere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(3,159,934) (2,135,285) 6. On merits, CIT(A) held as under:- I have considered the AO's order as well as the appellant's submission. Having considered both, I am in agreement with the appellant's AR request that the comparison carried out by the AO to restrict the expenses to the extent of 67.58% instead of 75.70% as claimed by appellant company was based on wrong notion. Hence, the same was incorrectly carried out as the AO could not take note of the fact that the appellant company .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

correct in view of the aforesaid detailed submission of the appellant. Hence, in my considered view, the action of the AO was unjustified even as per the accounting Principle also. In the result, the addition so made by the AO is held to be incorrect and unjustified even as per accepted norms of the accounting Principle. Accordingly the addition so made by AO is deleted. Thus, the appellant's this ground of appeal is allowed. 9. Against the above order of CIT(A), Revenue is in further appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version