Consistency in prior orders sustains non-compete and TV production expense claims, while subscription revenue needs fresh factual verification.

Depreciation on non-compete fee was treated as following the assessee's earlier year position, and the direction to give consequential effect was upheld as consistent with the prior remand. Production cost of TV serials and programmes was also accepted as revenue expenditure, with the Revenue's reliance on Rule 9A and Rule 9B rejected in view of the settled view in earlier orders and the need for consistency on identical facts. The alleged short recognition of subscription revenue, however, required fresh verification because the figures had been accepted on an assumption without checking the actual records. That issue was remanded for factual examination and decision on supporting evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether depreciation on non-compete fee was allowable and whether the appellate authority was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to give consequential effect to the Tribunal's earlier decision; (ii) whether the cost of production of TV serials and programmes was to be treated as revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure allowing only depreciation; (iii) whether the addition on account of alleged short recognition of subscription revenue was sustainable without proper verification of the actual figures.

Issue (i): whether depreciation on non-compete fee was allowable and whether the appellate authority was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to give consequential effect to the Tribunal's earlier decision.

Analysis: The earlier decision in the assessee's own case had already remitted the non-compete fee issue for consequential action, and the appellate authority had only directed implementation of that earlier view. The direction was not treated as an impermissible fresh remand. In the absence of any contrary binding decision, the Tribunal applied the same approach for the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The direction to give consequential effect was upheld and the revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): whether the cost of production of TV serials and programmes was to be treated as revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure allowing only depreciation.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case and the connected group cases, where similar production expenditure on television content had been accepted on the same footing as earlier years. The revenue's objection based on Rule 9A and Rule 9B was not accepted in view of the settled earlier view and the need for consistency in identical facts.

Conclusion: The appellate order allowing the claim was sustained and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.

Issue (iii): whether the addition on account of alleged short recognition of subscription revenue was sustainable without proper verification of the actual figures.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the estimated subscription revenue recorded at year-end matched the actual subscription revenue later ascertained from customer data. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority had proceeded on an accounting assumption without fully verifying the actual records and evidence. The correct income figure required factual examination rather than a purely abstract application of mercantile accounting.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision on the basis of the actual facts and supporting evidence.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal failed, while the assessee's appeal succeeded only to the extent of a remand on the subscription revenue issue, leaving the remaining findings in favour of the assessee undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Identical issues governed by earlier orders and requiring only consequential effect should be followed on the principle of consistency, while disputed income recognition must be determined on verified actual facts and evidence rather than assumption alone.

---