AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred appeals before CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) vide common order dated 25-03-2013 allowed the appeals of the assessee. for the AYs. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10,Similarly, for the AYs. 2006-07 & 2007-08, the CIT(Appeals) vide order dated 22-03-2013, allowed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved against the above said orders, the Revenue has filed appeals for all the six AYs. The common issue involved in all the six appeals is the expenditure incurred by assessee towards programme, production expenses, amortization of film and serial broadcasting rights, cost of programme content (rights) and expenditure towards consumables and media claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. Whereas, the Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment for the respective AYs., held that the expenditure on the items mentioned above is to be capitalized. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that Rule 9A and 9B of the Income Tax Rules are applicable on production of serials as well as broadcasting of the films and serials through satellite channel. Apart from the aforementioned common issue in all the AYs some other issues are also raised by the Revenue in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee on 29-03-2011. The time limit for issuance of notice u/s. 148 i.e., within the period of four years has elapsed on 31-03-2009. Un-disputedly, re-opening proceedings were initiated against the assessee for the AY. 2004-05 beyond the period of four years and is thus clearly hit by proviso to section 147 of the Act. For AY. 2005-06, the assessee filed its return of income on 29-10-2005. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) on 30-03-2007. Notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 25-03-2011. The re-opening proceedings are well within the limit of four years in respect of AY. 2005-06. What is to be ascertained is whether the reasons for re-opening in both the AYs are valid? The re-opening proceedings were initiated against the assessee as the assessee had claimed film rights as revenue expenditure but were treated as intangible assets. The Assessing Officer was of the view that it should have been capitalized. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the details regarding cost of films and the nature of expenditure etc., were submitted by the assessee at the time of assessment. The CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order has observed that the Assessing Officer at the time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....films on serials as well. On the other hand, the contention of the Revenue is that the film and serial broadcasting rights acquired by assessee are perpetual in nature. After first telecast, the assessee does not discard the films but carefully store the same in digital library for airing the same again. Therefore, the assessee gets enduring benefit from the rights acquired in films and serials and they do not expire on the date of first telecast as contemplated by the assessee. The rights are intangible assets within the meaning of Explanation (iii) to Section 32 and do not fall within the purview of Section 37(1). The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on same. 9. The issue of amortization of cost of movie and serial rights, programme production expenses, consumable and media expenses by treating them as intangible assets u/s.32(1)(ii) has been dealt in detail by the CIT(Appeals) in his order dated 23-02-2013 relevant to the AY. 2006-07 and 2007-08. We fully agree with the detailed findings and the reasoning given by the CIT(Appeals) in his order allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the findings of CIT(Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the same should have been offered as income in the current year. It is not disputed that the income generated by selling the time-slot is offered as income in the year of broadcasting/airing the programme. The monies received are shown as deferred revenue in the year of receipt and are offered as income in the year when programme is aired. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in methodology adopted by assessee in registering the revenue in the year of telecast of programme. There is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue, the same is dismissed. 12. In the appeals for the AY. 2008-09 & 2009-10, there is another issue with respect to dis-allowance of `97,30,000/- and `1,86,74,250/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the investments were not made by the assessee for business purposes and therefore, are not be treated as trade investments. Moreover, the investments in subsidiary companies were made out of the funds raised through public issue and not out of borrowed funds. The ld. DR has contended the assessee has made huge investment to the tune of `2584.08 million during the year under consideration, the assessee must have incur....