TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.45,80,950/- being expenses on account of royalty payable to T.V. channels. The AO noted that during the year the assessee had claimed total royalty payment of Rs.1,00,50,989/- to various T.V. channels compared to payment of Rs.1,31,35,562/- in the immediate preceding year. The royalty claim had been made against 8 parties. The AO noted that the assessee failed to file confirmations from the following parties involving total royalty of Rs.45,80,950/-. 1. Ultra Movies Channel Rs.13,27,000/- 2. Set India Ltd. Rs.1,36,800/- 3. New Television India Ltd. Rs.24,62,400/- 4. Turner International P. Ltd. Rs.21,750/- 5. El-Zee Television Ltd. Rs.6,33,000 Rs.45,80,950/- 2.1 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing of the assessment order. It was also submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting additional evidence copy of which have been placed at page 8-16 of the paper book. It was also submitted that the assessee had provided complete details of the payments which had been made by cheque. The assessee had been receiving signal from some T.V. channels in the earlier year and subsequent year in which no disallowance was made. It was accordingly urged that the disallowance made should be deleted. The ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below and placed reliance in the finding given in the respective orders. 2.4 We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding disallowanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The additional evidence therefore in our view are required to be admitted in the interest of justice as these will be useful in deciding the dispute raised by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO for passing fresh order after necessary examination of additional evidence filed before CIT(A) and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The second dispute is regarding addition of Rs.3,63,655/- on account of discrepancy in the account of Cable Video India and credited in the books of the assessee. The AO noted that as per books of the assessee, the credit balance outstanding in the name of Cable Video India was Rs.9,89,640/- but the party had confirmed credit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the other hand supported the orders of authorities below. 3.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The addition of Rs.3,63,655/- has been made on account of discrepancy in the account of creditor Cable Video India . The case of the assessee is that there was no discrepancy in the transactions undertaken during the year and discrepancy was only in the opening balance. This claim has not been controverted by the revenue authorities. It is clear that discrepancy is on account of transactions in the earlier years. The assessee has also submitted that account of the party was reconciled in assessment year 2000-01 and amount was offered as income as ultimately nothing was found due to the party. In our view there i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and comprises of 3-categories. The sum of Rs.1,28,534/- and Rs.1,09,900/- was on account of subscriptions receivable from cable operators, and a sum of Rs.68,000/- related to advertisement amount relating to the years 1997-98 -1998-99 which had been written off and the 3rd category was advances to employees amounting to Rs.56,137/- which had been written off as the employees had left the company. It was argued that the claim was allowable and therefore, the authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 4.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of claim of bade debts amounting to Rs.3,62,571/-. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e business was not verifiable. The AO therefore disallowed the amount of investment as non-business expenditure. He also disallowed the claim of depreciation at Rs.36,203/-. The assessee disputed the decision of AO and submitted before CIT(A) that bills relating to assets added by the AO could not be traced during the assessment proceedings. The full particulars of assets purchased and date of purchase had been mentioned in Form 3CD to the tax audit report. The assessee was owner of assets and the same were used for the purpose of business. It was accordingly urged that the claim should not be dis-allowed. Alternatively it was also submitted that disallowance if any could be limited to Rs.36,203/- . CIT(A) however did not accept the explana....