9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, an individual, and during the accounting year completed and released a feature film by name "Veeru Ustad". The books of account showed the total cost of be Rs. 20,05,424. During the accounting year concerned, the assessee had sold the distribution rights in respect of all the territories excepting the territories of Bombay, A. P. and Mysore. According to the provisions of r. 9A, the cost attri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making an addition. 5. The CIT (A) had also considered an alternative ground. In the alternative ground, he found that the total cost of production was not Rs. 20,05,424 but Rs. 14,51,930. On that basis also, there could be no addition. 6. The department, has now come on appeal. Initially, Shri Ruhela, ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT (A) had admitted additional evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000. Thus, the assessee had incurred a loss in this deal. He submitted that the provisions of r.9A(9) would cover such cases and, therefore, the claim was properly allowed by the CIT (A). In respect of the alternative submission, he pointed out that all the facts were before the ITO and no new evidence was led. 7. We have considered the facts of the case. There is no dispute that the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the balance of the cost of production should be carried forward to the next year and allowed as a deduction in that year. The department has also understood that there was a case for valuation of such unsold distribution areas. It will, therefore, not open for us, at least in this case, to hold that such a valuation is not possible. 8. Once we come to a finding that such a valuation is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by the assessee when he had valued the undistributed areas at Rs. 2,41,000 instead of Rs. 5,74,221. We will, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (A) on this point. 9. It is true in the alternative submission the CIT (A) had looked into certain details which were not before the ITO. Therefore, we will not place our finding on the basis of the statements given in the alternative submission. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
