TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee M/s. AVM Film Studio has been carrying on the business activity of running of film studio, maintenance of old movies rights and other related activities. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has filed its return of income by admitting income of Rs..2,163/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that during the previous year, the assessee has received an amount of Rs..77,83,000/- from sale of film rights in the AVM Productions and Entertainment. However, the assessee firm has offered only Rs..10,52,171/- as current year income and the balance amount of Rs..67,30,829/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of rights of exploitation, distribution and execution of films, video copy rights and home video copy rights etc. during this assessment year holding that these amounts accrued to the assessee during this assessment year only and it cannot be spread over during the lease period. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the action of the Assessing Officer holding that receipt partakes the character of accrued and received during the year and therefore liable to be taxed in the year of receipt. While coming to such conclusion, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:- " 8. I have carefully considered the submission of the AR. The logic: adduced by the AR that the tax rate for the relevant year and the future years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of merit as the appellant has performed his part of the contract of sale and consideration is also received in full and hence there is no case for spreading of income to future years. The reliance placed by the appellant on various judgements is also misplaced since the appellant on sale of movie rights has fully rendered services and hence accounting of income proportionately is not justifiable. Therefore I hold that the AO is correct in bringing to tax an amount of Rs..2,65,28,535/- as income and I confirm the addition. Therefore, grounds of appeal are dismissed." 10. In one of the agreements entered into by the assessee for assigning copy rights of various films with Mozer Bear India Ltd. on 8.9.2007 the clause with respect to grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....violating any part of the agreement by distributing or exploiting the rights of the film outside the territories for which the rights were granted, the lessors would be at liberty to cancel the agreement and repossess the prints and forfeit all amounts paid by the lesses and to claim further damages as the case may be. The said amount was neither advance nor a deposit but was a price paid by the lessees towards the cost of exploitation, distribution and exhibition rights of the film for five years. By virtue of the agreement with the lessees the assessee acquired the right to receive and had actually received the sum of Rs. 2.10 lakhs during the relevant year. The bifurcation of this amount for different periods as mentioned in the agreemen....