TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court upholds cine actor's rasigar manram expenses for 2004-05, emphasizing their professional importance.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus A. Vijayakant</h3> The High Court of Madras upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the rasigar manram expenses claimed by a cine actor for the ... Business Expenditure- assessee is a popular cine actor. The assessment relates to the year 2004-05. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 20,19,000 towards rasigar manram expenses. The assessing authority rejected the said claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) allow the assessee’s appeal restricting the disallowance to 20%. The Tribunal confirm the order. Held that- popular cine artists promote their resigar manrams for the purpoe of promoting their films among the public at large. The amount spent towards dress, food etc, at the time of release of new films as well as for regular maintenance of “rasigar manrams” activities was a part of their professional activities. Dismissing the appeal. Issues:1. Disallowance of rasigar manram expenses without supporting evidence.2. Exclusivity of rasigar manram expenses for professional purposes.Issue 1: Disallowance of rasigar manram expenses without supporting evidenceThe case involved an appeal by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of rasigar manram expenses claimed by a popular cine actor for the year 2004-05. The assessing authority had rejected the claim, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to 20% based on previous assessment years. The Commissioner considered rasigar manram expenses crucial for maintaining the actor's popularity and relevant to his profession. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of such expenses in the cine industry. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, stating that these expenses were indeed part of the actor's professional activities and essential for promoting films and maintaining fan engagement. As a result, the Court found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal and dismissed it.Issue 2: Exclusivity of rasigar manram expenses for professional purposesThe second issue raised was whether the rasigar manram expenses were incurred wholly, necessarily, and exclusively for the actor's profession. The Revenue contended that the expenses lacked genuine supporting evidence and exclusivity for professional use. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found these expenses integral to the actor's profession, especially in promoting films and engaging with fans through rasigar manram activities. The Court supported this view, highlighting the common practice among cine artists to invest in such promotional activities to enhance their popularity and film promotions. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision to restrict the disallowance to 20% and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the relevance of rasigar manram expenses to the actor's professional endeavors.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras affirmed the Tribunal's decision regarding the rasigar manram expenses claimed by the cine actor, emphasizing their significance in the actor's professional activities and fan engagement. The Court rejected the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the importance of such expenses in the cine industry and their relevance to promoting films and maintaining popularity among fans.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
