AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/Ahd/2012 are cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue directed against the very same order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Baroda dated 22.08.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. In the impugned appeals of the assessee and the revenue, the grievance is common in both the years; therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. We first take up ITA No. 374/Ahd/2012 Assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09. 3. The sole of the assessee relates to the addition of Rs. 1,58,90,158/- on account of ESOP. 4. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O noticed that the assessee disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,97,05,624/-, being amount debited in the Profit and Lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion in faovur of the revenue. 7. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. (supra) has considered this issue at para 9 of its order and at para 10, the Tribunal considered the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Biocon Ltd. 25 ITR (Trib.) 602 and after considering the decision of the Special Bench directed the A.O to claim of deduction. 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd. 25 Taxmann.com 286 has allowed such claim as business expenditure and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. in ITA No. 107/2015 has followed the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his predecessor which were confirmed by the Tribunal, the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O to delete the impugned addition. 12. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. 13. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decisions of the Tribunal in earlier assessment years which have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The ld. counsel supplied the copies of the orders. The ld. D.R. could not bring any binding decision in favour of the revenue. 14. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below qua the issues. There is no dispute that the A.O has made the additions based upon the findings given in e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing the findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we decline to interfere. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 17. Ground no. 2 relates to the decision of the addition of Rs. 69,30,298/- made on account of disallowance of expenditure on prints treating it as capital expenditure. 18. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O found that the assessee has claimed expenditure on acquisition of distribution rights, print cost at Rs. 69,30,298/- as revenue expenditure. The A.O further found that the assessee had amortized it against the print distribution rights and contracts. The A.O noticed that the assessee has claimed print cost of Rs. 69,30,298/- as revenue expenditure. The A.O was of the firm belief that the said e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed before the lower authorities. 21. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. Rule 9B of the Income Tax rules clearly and specifically provides that cost of prints cannot be included in the cost of acquisition of the exhibition rights in the film. Therefore, what can be carried forward are the cost of acquisition and not the cost of prints. In our considered opinion, the cost of prints has to be allowed in the year in which the expenditure is incurred. It is irrelevant as to what treatment the assessee has given in its books of accounts as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172. Considering the facts in totality, we decline to inte....