TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Appeal & Writ Petition, Compensation Deduction Disallowed, Commissioner's Revision Authority Limited</h1> The appeal and writ petition were dismissed. The compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs was not allowed as a deduction in the assessment year 2001-02. The ... Tribunal was justified in upholding that dispute relating to compensation didn’t crystallize before 31.3.01 & payment of same was made subsequent to balance dated 31.3.01 so not deductible in A.Y. 2001-02 – Deduction in A.Y. 2002-03 is also disallowed as Comm(A) can’t revise his order u/s 264. Issues Involved:1. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs paid by the assessee was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 2001-02.2. Whether the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could consider a deduction claim for the first time in revision proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allowability of Compensation as Deduction in Assessment Year 2001-02:The assessee, a film producer, entered a lease agreement with M/s. Asian Films for releasing a film 'Devi Putrudu' and received Rs. 3.37 crores before 31-03-2001. However, only Rs. 3.07 crores was accounted for in the profit and loss account. The assessee argued that due to a delay in delivering the film prints, M/s. Asian Films sought damages of Rs. 44,09,872/-. The assessee paid Rs. 30 lakhs as compensation, which he contended should not be assessable during the relevant previous year.The assessing officer rejected this contention, adding Rs. 30 lakhs to the income returned by the assessee, stating that the liability for compensation arose in the assessment year 2002-03 and no evidence was provided to show that the compensation accrued during the assessment year 2001-02. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) upheld this decision, noting that the dispute continued until 05-10-2001 and that the payment of Rs. 30 lakhs was not directly linked to the dispute with M/s. Asian Films.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) also upheld the decision, stating that the evidence furnished by the assessee was subsequent to the balance sheet date of 31-03-2001, and the dispute did not crystallize before this date. Consequently, the liability did not accrue during the relevant previous year, and the deduction could not be allowed. The Tribunal also dismissed the alternative plea to allow the deduction in the next assessment year.2. Consideration of Deduction Claim in Revision Proceedings for Assessment Year 2002-03:For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 22,09,270/- without claiming the Rs. 30 lakhs deduction, as he was contesting it for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessing officer completed the assessment, determining a total income of Rs. 25,11,208/-. The assessee then filed a revision under Section 264, requesting the Commissioner to allow the Rs. 30 lakhs deduction.The Commissioner rejected the revision application, stating that the assessment order for 2002-03 did not reference any deduction claim of Rs. 30 lakhs, and the issue did not arise in that assessment year. The Commissioner emphasized that the subject matter of the petition under Section 264 had no bearing on the assessment made for the assessment year 2002-03.The High Court examined whether the Commissioner under Section 264 could consider a question raised for the first time in revision proceedings. It noted that unlike Section 263, which includes an explanation allowing the Commissioner to consider all records available at the time of examination, Section 264 does not contain such an explanation. Therefore, the Commissioner under Section 264 is limited to the records of the proceedings before the assessing officer and cannot take into account any material not placed before the assessing authority or events that occurred subsequent to the assessment order.The High Court concluded that the Commissioner's order dated 29-12-2006 did not necessitate interference, as the assessee did not claim the deduction in the return filed before the assessing authority and could not raise this question for the first time in revision proceedings under Section 264.Conclusion:The appeal (I.T.T.A.No.74 of 2007) and the writ petition (W.P.No.3647 of 2007) were dismissed. The compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs was not allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 2001-02, and the Commissioner under Section 264 could not consider the deduction claim for the first time in revision proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
