Tribunal remands assessment for review of depreciation on non-compete fee, TV serial costs, and Film Software Library

The Tribunal remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and re-valuation. The disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee, cost of production of TV serials, and the depreciation rate on Film Software Library were all subject to review to ensure alignment with decisions in related cases and proper examination of genuineness and necessity. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a thorough re-evaluation of the disputed matters.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee.
2. Disallowance of cost of production of TV serials and programs.
3. Depreciation rate on Film Software Library.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 53,08,43,906/- claimed as depreciation on non-compete fee. The non-compete fee was a result of a demerger from M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (UEPL), which had entered into a non-compete agreement with M/s. Usha Kiran Television and M/s. Usha Kiran Movies. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the depreciation, questioning the genuineness and necessity of the non-compete fee, and treating it as a colorable device. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this view. The Tribunal noted that similar issues were remanded to the A.O. in the cases of UEPL and Prism TV Pvt. Ltd. It was directed that the A.O. reconsider the matter, examining the impact of the acquisition of 39% equity shares by M/s. Equator Trading Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and the necessity and genuineness of the non-compete fee. Consequently, this issue was remanded back to the A.O. for reconsideration, aligning with the decisions in related cases.

2. Disallowance of Cost of Production of TV Serials and Programs:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 46,94,76,000/- incurred on the production of TV serials and programs, which the A.O. treated as capital expenditure, allowing only 25% depreciation. The Tribunal referenced its decision in the case of Prism TV Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that such costs should be treated as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed this precedent and allowed the assessee's claim, treating the production costs as revenue expenditure.

3. Depreciation Rate on Film Software Library:
The assessee challenged the depreciation rate of 15% allowed by the A.O. on the Film Software Library, arguing it should be 25%. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the case of UEPL, where it was determined that the Film Software Library should be treated as an intangible asset, allowing depreciation at the higher rate applicable to intangible assets. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the A.O. for re-valuation of the asset, directing that depreciation be allowed at the rate applicable to intangible assets.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issues back to the A.O. for reconsideration and re-valuation, ensuring alignment with the decisions in related cases and proper examination of the genuineness and necessity of the non-compete fee, the treatment of production costs as revenue expenditure, and the correct depreciation rate for the Film Software Library.

---